BradP:But what about this one: "Any child not 'potty trained' must wear an approved swim diaper". Isn't it appropriate to put slang in quotation?

Is potty training slang? I never considered it to be. What would you consider the non-slang term, perhaps toilet training? I think potty training is pretty common terminology.

erinja:

tommjames:Regarding "15 items or less", you might find this article interesting. Perhaps even opinion changing, who knows.

However, I cannot bring nine and a half items to a supermarket checkout line. A half an item doesn't make sense. If you divide an item in half, you get two items, not two "half items". And what does dividing an item in half even mean?

You certainly can. You cut a banana in half, and you have two banana halves. The cashier will probably even confirm the existence of the "half item", telling you that you may not purchase half of a banana.

"Fewer" is a subset of "less than", as integers are a subset of numbers. In math we use the "greater than"/"less than" signs to encompass all inequalities, because they fit both integers and fractions.

And while we are quibbling about language, I think the "unnecessary quotation" website is also wrongly poking fun at the practice of putting labels in quotation marks - such as for "AA" and "AAA" batteries.

erinja:

BradP:But what about this one: "Any child not 'potty trained' must wear an approved swim diaper". Isn't it appropriate to put slang in quotation?

Is potty training slang? I never considered it to be. What would you consider the non-slang term, perhaps toilet training? I think potty training is pretty common terminology.

Well, it certainly isn't formal language. I wouldn't expect a technical report on child rearing or dog training to include the term "potty training".

BradP:You certainly can. You cut a banana in half, and you have two banana halves. The cashier will probably even confirm the existence of the "half item", telling you that you may not purchase half of a banana.

A half a banana is a half a banana, it is not a half item.

For example, food is an uncountable word in many contexts. Cookies are foods and they are countable. Just because cookies are a subset of "food" and cookies are countable, does not mean that food is countable. A banana is a banana. An item is an item. The sign is not counting bananas, it is counting checkout items. If I have one bag of melons, that's a single item. If I divide my melons into two bags, I now have two items - two bags of melons. If I buy two half-melons (very conceivable), I am buying two items. Item and melon are separate categories. I can't fill my shopping cart with thirty melon-halves, individually wrapped, and claim to the checker that an item is one complete melon, and therefore that my cardload of thirty halves is really equivalent to only fifteen whole, and that I'm therefore eligible for the fifteen or fewer express lane.

And while we are quibbling about language, I think the "unnecessary quotation" website is also wrongly poking fun at the practice of putting labels in quotation marks - such as for "AA" and "AAA" batteries.

What's wrong with calling them AA batteries? What information are the quotes adding? You can indeed use quotation marks with titles, but AA isn't a title, it's a size. I wear size 8 clothing, not "size 8" clothing, nor size "8" clothing.

BradP:Well, it certainly isn't formal language. I wouldn't expect a technical report on child rearing or dog training to include the term "potty training".

There's a big difference between something not being formal language, and something being slang. Colloquial, everyday use does not mean slang. If I say that someone had a heart attack, I wouldn't write it with quotes around it, even though it isn't the scientific term. Sure, a serious research paper would say coronary infarction. But that doesn't mean that heart attack is slang. It's just everyday language versus formal.

Furthermore, even if potty training was slang, would you put it in quotation marks? And if so, why? And do you honestly, seriously believe that the person who wrote the potty training sign wrote "potty training", with quotes, because they believed it was slang? Or were they trying to emphasize the words with those quotes? Be honest now. I don't believe for a second that the person thought, hm, let me think, it is slang so I shall put it in quotes. No, they were thinking, Holy #(@!, I don't want to clean up poo from my pool, so those kids darned well better be wearing rubber pants if they aren't potty trained!

erinja:

BradP:You certainly can. You cut a banana in half, and you have two banana halves. The cashier will probably even confirm the existence of the "half item", telling you that you may not purchase half of a banana.

A half a banana is a half a banana, it is not a half item.

For example, food is an uncountable word in many contexts. Cookies are foods and they are countable. Just because cookies are a subset of "food" and cookies are countable, does not mean that food is countable. A banana is a banana. An item is an item. The sign is not counting bananas, it is counting checkout items. If I have one bag of melons, that's a single item. If I divide my melons into two bags, I now have two items - two bags of melons. If I buy two half-melons (very conceivable), I am buying two items. Item and melon are separate categories. I can't fill my shopping cart with thirty melon-halves, individually wrapped, and claim to the checker that an item is one complete melon, and therefore that my cardload of thirty halves is really equivalent to only fifteen whole, and that I'm therefore eligible for the fifteen or fewer express lane.

So according to you, dividing one item in half produces two items, but adding two items together (watermelon halves) also produces two items.

What kind of math did you take in school??

For example, food is an uncountable word in many contexts. Cookies are foods and they are countable. Just because cookies are a subset of "food" and cookies are countable, does not mean that food is countable.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, since the issue is not the adoption of the specialized "fewer than" for all types of quantities, but the use of the generic "less than" for all types of quantities.

What's wrong with calling them AA batteries? What information are the quotes adding? You can indeed use quotation marks with titles, but AA isn't a title, it's a size. I wear size 8 clothing, not "size 8" clothing, nor size "8" clothing.

There's nothing glaringly wrong with simply referring to them without quotes. But the size is also the label of the battery. I could refer to a small shirt, or I could refer to a "small" shirt, because "small" is a label written on the shirt tag and I am quoting it directly.

erinja:

BradP:Well, it certainly isn't formal language. I wouldn't expect a technical report on child rearing or dog training to include the term "potty training".

There's a big difference between something not being formal language, and something being slang. Colloquial, everyday use does not mean slang. If I say that someone had a heart attack, I wouldn't write it with quotes around it, even though it isn't the scientific term. Sure, a serious research paper would say coronary infarction. But that doesn't mean that heart attack is slang. It's just everyday language versus formal.

Furthermore, even if potty training was slang, would you put it in quotation marks? And if so, why? And do you honestly, seriously believe that the person who wrote the potty training sign wrote "potty training", with quotes, because they believed it was slang? Or were they trying to emphasize the words with those quotes? Be honest now. I don't believe for a second that the person thought, hm, let me think, it is slang so I shall put it in quotes. No, they were thinking, Holy #(@!, I don't want to clean up poo from my pool, so those kids darned well better be wearing rubber pants if they aren't potty trained!

Yes, I think they definitely put the term in quotes because it is colloquial, borderline slang. Look at this sentence:

Any child not POTTY TRAINED must wear a diaper at all times.

That punctuation looks ridiculous to me; if there is any word that should logically be emphasized, it is "all" or "all times"

Again, I just don't see anything glaringly wrong with their usage.

BradP:Yes, I think they definitely put the term in quotes because it is colloquial, borderline slang. Look at this sentence:

Any child not POTTY TRAINED must wear a diaper at all times.

That punctuation looks ridiculous to me; if there is any word that should logically be emphasized, it is "all" or "all times"

Again, I just don't see anything glaringly wrong with their usage.

I'm definitely siding with Erinja on this one. Perhaps you "don't" see why random quotes "shouldn't" be used for emphasis, but I'm sure you can appreciate why "random" words should not be set apart. Even if the words are colloquial (or even slang), that's no reason to set them apart-

Mr. Wilson, "can" I be excused?

You're so "cool."

I never said quotations should be used for emphasis or to set random words apart.

Some words, and especially phrases, do not quite literally describe the object or action referred to. It is common to use quotes for such words/phrases.

He was too "tongue tied" to change their minds.

We ran into some "potholes" along the way.

A "potty" is "A small pot for use as a toilet by an infant or young child."

But "potty training" usually refers to using a toilet, urinal, or otherwise acceptable receptacle for releasing bodily waste. It does not specifically refer to a "potty". It would be quite silly to refer to a toilet as the "potty" outside of that slang.

So by and large, quite acceptable!!

P.S. I am especially "spot on" with all my other arguments.

@erinja and other debaters - Regarding the divisibility of shopping items, I do understand the discrete/continuous entities principle for the comparative but to my mind it’s kind of a red herring because there are various ways we can interpret the underlying message of the sign that displays “10 items or less”, specifically in regards to the semantic meaning of “10 items”. If you read it “ten items [discrete plural], or fewer items than that.” then clearly the principle holds, and on reflection I think I agree with you that the article I linked to is off-base because it postulates the invalidity of this quite valid interpretation. But as I see it there’s no particular reason the sign has to be read that way. “10 items” could just as well be a descriptor of a limit or threshold above which the amount of items in your basket may not pass. This, I would argue, is a notionally singular entity not plural and thus the sign may just as well read “ten items [abstract idea of a yardstick], or less than that yardstick.” I for one think this way when I see the sign, though doubtless opinions will vary.

That’s not to say this interpretation is the most suitable or even that I favour it. But if it is valid (and my investigation leads me to believe it is; please set me straight if I’m wrong), then I see no reason to go tearing down “10 items or less” just yet, at least not on the basis of grammatical “incorrectness”.

I guess a grammarian might retort by pointing out that in the vast majority of cases the distinction between “less” and “fewer” comes down to the difference between discrete and continuous mass nouns, and as such we should approach the question from that angle. I’m not sold though. Specific context will dictate the semantic of the idea we’re trying to convey and in this instance I see it as an acceptable deviation from the broad linguistic norm, albeit a highly debatable one. On this basis and similar ones I believe rests much of the argumentation for the acceptability of “less”, and I must say the debate seems far from resolved, at least from what I’ve seen. So I’m reticent to get into the whole “right/wrong” paradigm. This whole thing could just come down to a matter of interpretation.

More generally, I largely accept the argument against meaning-drift but in this instance I don’t really see where the big problem is, and I don’t personally recall any occasion in which usage of “less” instead of “fewer” resulted in any lack of clarity or confusion of any kind whatsoever. I would also suggest it is perhaps the rule itself that is arbitrary here; it’s not as if standard usage is drifting away from some bygone age of lucidity: less has always been used this way and no doubt always will be, notwithstanding the proclamations of the self-appointed "authorities" on the matter.

Anyway there's my considerably more than 2 cents. I look forward to your views on this.