The urge to size up and compare things is no doubt one of humankind’s strongest instincts, so it’s really no surprise that every language evolves a well-defined grammar for comparatives. In English, of course, the comparative is normally formed in either of two ways: (a) by adding the suffix “-er” to the positive form of an adjective (or adverb), as in “sweeter” for “sweet,” or (b) by putting the modifiers “more,” “less,” or “fewer” ahead of a polysyllabic adjective derived from a foreign language, as in “more lucrative,” “less delicious,” and “fewer candidates.”

Then, to complete the comparative form, the subordinating conjunction “than” is placed between the two elements being compared: “The oranges in this orchard are sweeter than those grown across the river.” “Her business is more [less] lucrative than mine.” “The vacant position attracted fewer applicants than we expected.” Note that in these comparative constructions, the first element is a clause that expresses the difference (as in “The oranges in this orchard are sweeter”), and the second element is introduced by the subordinating conjunction “than” (“than those grown across the river”).

In two-clause sentences, however, the following two-part subordinating conjunctions are used instead of “than”: (a) “as/not as…as,” as in “Our Baguio branch is as [not as] big as our Cebu branch”; (b) “not so/not as…as,” as in “Her second novel is not as [not so] exciting as her first one”; (c) “the same…as,” as in “Her dress that night was the same design as the party host’s”; and (d) “less/more…than,” as in “The trip cost more [less] than he had planned.”

These comparatives are already second nature to most of us, but when it comes to the comparatives “fewer” and “less” in particular, not a few native and nonnative English speakers still fumble in their choice. Indeed, precisely under what circumstances should “fewer” or “less” be used?  

The choice between “fewer” and “less” depends on whether the noun to be modified is countable or noncountable. When something is countable, of course, we can figure out without great difficulty how many of it there are; we then use “number” as an indefinite measure for it, as in “the number of voters” and the “a number of recipes.” In contrast, something is noncountable if it’s in bulk form and counting its constituent units would be insufferably difficult or impossible; we then use “amount” as a measure for it, as in “the amount of sunlight” and “a great amount of labor.”

Now, the word “fewer” is used as a comparative for plural count nouns, or things that use “number” as measure, as in “There are fewer buyers of hats now than last month” and “She found fewer grammatical errors in the latest student essays.” On the other hand, “less” is used as a comparative for singular mass nouns, or things that use “amount” as measure, as in “We consumed less electricity this month than last month” and “Our new supervisor is less strict in attendance than his predecessor.”

Usually, a comparative statement would ping our ears if it wrongly uses “less” for “fewer” or vice versa, as in “Less contractors than anticipatedare bidding for the irrigation dam construction” or “Our customers are showing fewer tolerance for the saltiness of our spaghetti.” (Now feel the pleasant autocorrection when “less” is replaced with “fewer” in the first sentence, and “fewer” with “less” in the second: “Fewer contractors than anticipatedare bidding for the irrigation dam construction.” “Our customers are showing less tolerance for the saltiness of our spaghetti.”)

Some exceptions, though: When a plural count noun is thought of as an aggregate, “amount” instead of “number” can be used as a measure for it, as in “They’ll supply us with whatever amount of smoked ham we need.” Also, in c

ertain cases, it’s grammatically correct to use a singular mass noun in the plural-count sense, like “cement” in the following sentence: “We need to reduce the number of kilos of cement that we are ordering monthly.” (May 29, 2010)

-------------------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, May29, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment

One important aspect of English grammar that I don’t recall having discussed fully yet is the conditional sentence. This is the type of sentence that conveys the idea that the action in the main clause can take place only if the condition in the subordinate clause—the “if”-clause—is fulfilled.

The simplest form of the conditional sentence has this structure: the “if” clause states the condition in the present simple tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the result clause in the form “will + base form of the verb,” as in this example: “If you meet your sales quota, we will give you a fat bonus.”

But there are actually four types of conditional sentences, each type indicating the degree of certainty or likelihood that the stated condition will be fulfilled. They are the so-called first conditional or real possibility, the second conditional or unreal possibility, the third conditional or no possibility, and the zero conditional or certainty.

The first conditional (real possibility)

The first conditional talks about a high degree of possibility that a particular condition or situation will happen in the future as a result of a possible future condition. This is the case with the first conditional sentence given earlier: “If you meet your sales quota, we will give you a fat bonus.” As with all types of conditional sentences, of course, the result clause can also be stated ahead of the cause clause, as in this example: “We will give you a fat bonus if you meet your sales quota.”

The second conditional (unreal possibility)

The second conditional talks about a possible but very unlikely result that the stated future condition will be fulfilled; in short, the stated outcome is an unreal possibility. This type of conditional has the following sentence structure: the “if” clause states the future condition in the simple past tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the future result clause in the form “would + base form of the verb,” as in this example: “If I finished law school, I would be a lawyer.” (“I would be a lawyer if I finished law school.”) The speaker here is talking of an unreal possibility because he didn’t finish school and didn’t become a lawyer.

The third conditional (no possibility)

The third conditional talks about a condition in the past that didn’t happen, thus making it impossible for a wished-for result to have happened. This type of sentence has the following structure: the “if” clause states the impossible past condition using the past perfect tense “had + past participle of the verb,” is followed by a comma, then followed by the impossible past result in the form “would have + past participle of the verb,” as in this example: “If I had saved enough money, I would have bought that house.” (“I would have bought that house if I had saved enough money.”) The speaker here is talking of an impossible situation because he had not saved enough money and has not bought that house.

Third conditionals could sometimes also use the modal forms “should have,” “could have,” and “might have,” as in these modal variants of the example above: “If I had saved enough money, I should have bought that house.” “If I had saved enough money, I could have bought that house.” “If I had saved enough money, I might have bought that house.” In all three cases, of course, none of the wished-for situations in the past had taken place.

The zero conditional (certainty)

Finally, the zero conditional or certainty talks about a condition whose result is always true and always the same, like a scientific fact. It has the following sentence structure: the “if” clause states the condition in the simple present tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the result clause also in the simple present tense, as in this example: “If people don’t drink water, they get dehydrated.” (“People get dehydrated if they don’t drink water.”) (June 12, 2010)

-------------------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, July 10, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment