Conference 7.286::digital

    
       I wish I had personally known and worked with George Harper.  As of
    June 29th past this company lost a precious fragment of Excellence.
    
       As for the idea (a good one) of exit interview/polling, I fear it
    it would only be an acedemic exercise.  With fewer and fewer managers
    of the caliber of George Harper about, what possible good effect of
    such exit polls be?  I apoligize for my cynicism, but that is my
    opinion.
    

While I see nothing wrong with exit interviews, I would object for Ken to
be directly involved in the exit process.  I would hope that he would spend
his time with more important things than why a third shift computer operator
left to have a baby rather than changing hours and using daycare...

Exit interviews should be handled by the local personnel organization.
Statistics on departure reasons should be gathered and fed up through the
personnel organization.

/john

    FYI...Exit interviews are conducted by the Personnel organization and
    the data is fed "into" (versus "up) a corporate data base.  Having done
    a few of these myself, there are a few instances where Ken should not
    be thanking these employees for their "contributions".  The majority of
    folks exiting the company have valuable opinions that are recorded and
    actually provide data that is used in policy making decisions.
    
    And, IMHO, no, you shouldn't have put fed up and the Personnel
    organization so close.
    

    Let us recall the proverb, 'Don't burn any bridges...'.  These exit
    interviews assume the soon to be former employee tells Personnel the
    reason(s) for departure.  I am sure that in many cases, the employee
    feels the need to depart, BECAUSE personnel was of little or no help.
    
    reg .2, I think the spacing between 'fed-up' and 'personnel' is just about
    right.  And I say that based on Personal Personnel experiance, and the
    retribution that it (didn't?) cause(d).

    REF:<<< Note 1140.4 by NEWVAX::ZIMMERMANN "DCO, Washington D.C." >>>
    
    >><< I am sure that in many cases, the employee feels the need to
    depart, BECAUSE personnel was of little or no help.>>
    
    If 2,600 employees have taken the buyout offer, and from those I've
    observed in my neck of the woods, I would perceive that most did NOT
    "have" to take it, but decided to because of perceived benefits to be
    derived personally.  I thus personally believe it would be
    short-sighted for Digital not to ask for feedback from these many
    long-term employees who have left -- but then again, Digital does not
    ask for feedback methodically and regularly of its current 120,000+
    employees and 6,000,000 customer users but that's another topic :-(
    

    I was not limiting my comments to those 2600 that are leaving DEC, but
    to any employee feeling the need to leave digital.  So far as I know,
    all employees do go through an exit interview.  My point was that an
    individual may not wish to give 'the real reason' for leaving, since it
    can not help the former employee, and may actually hurt them in the
    long run.

	I've known George, and several other Customer Service long-timers at 
ALF that took the golden parachute, for over 14 years, and we did lose some
fine ones!   I would wish George would mail that memo to the entire old
Southern Area! 

    	Exit interviews are great if the people who do the interview
    actually listen and take some action. BUT, that never happens. Most
    interviewers would just brush it off as 'sour grapes'. Too bad,
    the problem is growing and will only get worse. 
    
    	I think George made the ultimate point when he said that he
    remembered when politicians were in politics. Today, I see more
    managers worrying about perception rather than performance. If an
    employee is percieved by someone who has no idea what that employee's
    job is, of being lazy or something, then the perception takes on
    all important status. Any manager who falls for that perception
    crap is useless. He/she is part of the problem. They play the political
    game to keep their power base intact and forget the true purpose
    of their function. DEC is becoming a bureaucracy in much the same
    way of the US Gov't. Each fiefdom is an empire unto itself with
    managers promoting their own significance rather than proving their
    worth. 
    
    	When good people begin to leave, it should send a signal to
    those that sit in the seat of power that something is amiss. In
    its glory DEC has become so big that KO is insulated, by his choice
    or someone else's, from what is truly a crime. 
    
    	Listening is an art. Listening is a science. People who are
    interviewing are hearing, but not listening. It's a shame to lose
    good people when a bit of effort could keep them.......effort, another
    lost principle.
    
    	Farewell George. We never met, but I feel your spirit.
    
    Ken

    Along with George, I also recieved a letter from a very good friend,
    that had over 20 years with DEC. I spoke with him last night, and after
    taking out some personal stuff, he has told me its okay to post this,
    as it too gives one a perspective of DEC that I didn't know about
    either...
    
    
From:	CGVAX2::MACKEY "Bob - I am taking the package.  28-Jun-1990 1302" 28-JUN-1990 13:01:54.34
To:	BAD,ALL,ALL1
CC:	
Subj:	Goodbye ...


This is my last mail message. I have accepted the "package" and will be taking
advantage of the financial offer and the outplacement services offered through 
Drake Beam Morin Inc.  Or in other words, no, I don't have a job lined up, I am
leaving into a real crowded market. Talk about anxiety! Where's that margarita?

It is somewhat ironic that I finish DEC with the guy that hired me in 1969,
Jack Hagerty. We have both shared and contributed to the growth of Computer
Administration, order processing, or order administration, or COAC (or whatever
this weeks label is) for the past 20 years. Throughout, some of you recall 
the work we shared on the OAMC (I see it has been resurrected as OAMM, or 
something). Of those in the original order processing group called Computer 
Administration, my departure leaves only Jack and Jim Chamberlain as alumni 
still associated with OA (or OMS, or whatever). 

Let us not forget all those end of quarters that were strictly "manual" and
one saw all of management pushing PDP's to the dock. We even shipped product so 
fast that some of it never even got into the boxes. There was a lot of real
work and contribution going on as a team effort even though the only team
building was being in the Mill all at one time. 

ACOD ... Well, it worked. And look what ground was broken with it. I don't care
what anyone says, that was innovative for its time and it showed to folks that
networking data was the way to go. 

OTP will make it. No question in my mind. What a group. Oh boy, what a group...
I do regret not seeing it implemented this October. One year of testing. What a
career. 

Secretaries...what a great group of folks. Patty Brown got me through graduate
school typing papers the day before they were due, doing great overheads, and I
probably still owe her a dinner or two from then.

To all of you that I worked with or associated with at the professional and/or
social level, the very best to you. I know I have associated with only the best.


I have learned a lot from all of you and I thank you for it.


And to "You", I will always remember "You". There were very few people I have
enjoyed, "You" were one of them.



						METS in '90 ? ... maybe.

Thanks ...


			Bob

    I'm not sure it's practical for KO to be involved with every exit
    interview, and to read every parting letter.  But, on the other
    hand, I certainly hope he saw George's.  

    
    I received a "NO" from Corporate Employment within hours of submitting
    this idea suggestion (which is amazing, considering I've been waiting
    for over a year to hear anything on most idea suggestions I've
    submitted to date).
    
    The NO response to me indicated that in light of "the big picture" that
    they did not feel at this time that given the complexity and scope of
    all such cases in DEC that my suggestion was feasible.  They went on to
    suggest that they didn't want to end up with a "form letter" as that
    would negate the intent and purpose of my idea of personal attention. 
    They suggested that I pursue my idea with local senior managers with
    whom the departing employees could relate to and who could act and
    react to comments in a more timely fashion.  They also indicated that I
    needed to first substantiate the benefits of my idea suggestion before
    it could be sold and implemented.
    
    I responded back with the following questions:
    
    Why, with so many needing work to do in Digital in Massachusetts, is it
    not feasible?  Certainly using computer technology and such available
    people, the generation of the letters should be little effort.

    Why would not the same short and sweet letter to all departed employees 
    from Ken Olsen not be acceptable to all since each letter would be 
    personally addressed and signed?

    Why do you suggest that I should pursue my idea with local managers
    when the idea was for Ken Olsen, as president, to ask?

    Where would I get the time to "sell" managers around the world on this
    idea and "what's in it for them" and why is it "my" responsibility to
    sell local senior managers on doing this for those in their
    organizations who have voluntarily left Digital?

    Why isn't this your responsibility?

    Why do you think the "thinking" of now former employees is of such
    value that it should be "optional" on the part of any local manager to
    do a follow-up exit interview?

    And why not corporate?

    You suggest that I need to substantiate benefits.  Why is it not 
    management's responsibility to substantiate benefits based on the
    merits of an idea submitted, deciding if it can benefit the
    corporation, and if there are benefits, simply making a GO decision,
    acting on it accordingly?

    Why are not the benefits self-evident of my suggestion where the
    decision to do it can be made on intuition and common sense without the
    necessity of first "proving" the value of the action?

    Why isn't the attitude "management will do it" unless management can
    prove there is no merit or validity that will lead to building a
    better and more successful Digital?
    
    No one responded (several were copied) as of today, almost a week later.
    
    3,000 employees have taken the buyout.  All left voluntarily.  Many
    were long-term employees.  A lot of accumulated wisdom lies in those
    3,000 minds, and considering the desirability of incurring change to
    build a better and more successful Digital, it seems to me to make
    intuitive good sense to ask these 3,000 employees for some feedback,
    and my argument is that if Ken Olsen asked in a letter, then the
    executive committee might get some definitive input on problems and
    solutions that could be considered for action.
    
    In the last paragraph of Ken Olsen's opening letter in the just
    published DIGITAL AND YOU (page 1), he states "Digital believes that
    employees are its greatest assets and counts on them to help reach its
    goals by using proactive business ethics and contributing as
    individuals and members of a team toward Digital's success."
    
    Digital should be proactive with the 3,000 former employees.
    

>    <<< Note 1140.11 by ODIXIE::CARNELL "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF" >>>
>    I received a "NO" from Corporate Employment within hours of submitting
>    this idea suggestion 

I'm surprised it took more than an five minutes to get the "idea" rejected.  To
think that Digital would be improved somehow by forcing Ken Olsen gto develop 
a severe case of writers cramp is ludicrous.   

I think Digital is best served by Mr. Olsen concentrating on the big picture
rather than having to go down memory lane with every employee who leaves.

If people have something to say or do, let them say it now or do it now, 
not as they head out the door.

Let's try and remember that Digital is not a mom-and-pop operation.  It's
a multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation that employees over 100K
people.   It's a nice fairy tale to think it can be run like the corner
drug store, but it ain't reality.

Wait a minute.

Do you want a letter from Ken Olsen or a computer generated letter from
an administrative group authorized to write letters and claim they're
from Ken Olsen?

The latter is the way I read .11 -- where you talk about there being
enough people looking for things to do.

Of course, I would want those people who are looking for things to do
to be doing productive things for the company, not bidding fond farewells
to the departing.

/john

    
    Read the rejection letter! It would be simple to prove that your idea
    has merit. Try it locally, as the letter suggests. If you come up with
    a few nuggets of wisdom that could change the fortunes of this company
    for the better, you'll have a lot easier sell. The more unconventional
    the idea, the more supporting evidence is needed. (It would seem you have
    your work cut out for you.)
    
    No matter what form our suggestion programs take, they should never
    contradict a basic Digital maxim that has fostered successes for
    countless individuals and the company itself -- 
    
    			"Those who propose, dispose."
    

    REF: <<< Note 1140.14 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >>>
    
    >><<"Those who propose, dispose.">>
    
    Those who are managers own not only their authority over their group
    BUT ALSO the responsibility to implement continuous changes to incur
    improvement in all activities of their group in order to build a better
    and more successful Digital, and the basis for those improving changes
    must include taking seriously all identified problems and ideas being
    brought to their attention, either from members within the group, or
    from without it, be it from other Digital employees or customers.  One
    cannot negate this responsibility by simply saying, "Don't bother
    suggesting any problem or idea for change, unless YOU are going to do
    it for me."
    

    re .14
    
    This is not an unconventional idea.  It is a common practice, at most
    companies, for personnel to perform an exit interview.  Of course, this
    is only done by companies who actually want to improve themselves and
    not just talk about it, an in the "Digital and You" handbook, recently
    distributed.

    .14 is on the money.
    
    When I joined DEC, one of the first conversations my manager had with
    me was about "proposing => disposing."  
    
    I've seen nothing to indicate that this is any less valid in 1990.
    
    K.

    
    In this company, what's to say that exit interviews will be any more
    effective, as an agent of change, that 'employee involvement'
    suggestions?  
    
    I suppose there is the arguement that departing employees will be more
    candid as there is no fear of reprisal for negatively critical remarks.
    
    But even if the departing employee is being as 'sincere' as Linus in
    the pumpkin patch, what to say that the interviewers would be equally
    'sincere'?
    
    And who would conduct these interviews? Personnel presumably?
    
    Finally, one big storm (in the form of a new hand at the helm, or
    changing technology) could blow away the value of the exit interview.
    As an example, I offer the following personal exit interview
    experience:
    
    When I left active duty as a Naval Reserve officer more than twenty
    years ago, I had an exit interview.  The interviewer asked me what I
    thought of the Navy. One of the things I told him was that I thought
    that the Navy managed using methods of arificially created crisis.  I
    elaborated somewhat, but he didn't seem much interested.  
    
    I got the impression that exit interviews were a formality; that any
    suggestions or recommendations I offered would go nowhere.  I have no
    idea what the Navy did with the interview data; it went to the Bureau
    of Personnel, but then what? [I didn't much care BTW.] 
    
    After I left active duty, Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo
    Zuwalt came along and made many radical changes.  One that left an
    impression on me (as symptomatic of the extent of cultural change) is
    that Naval Officers on active duty were no longer required to have
    ceremonial swords.     

    Exit interviews WERE condcuted: here is a paraphased example of what was 
    sent out to the one person I know who left...
    


Thank you for your patience in waiting for a TFSO Exit Meeting appointment.

Your TFSO Exit Meeting is scheduled for:

          DATE: the date went here

          TIME: the time went here 

          EXIT COUNSELOR: name of person when here

          SITE:  name of site went here


    They were asked to please ensure that they bring the following forms 
    from their TFSO "grey" package:


   o   Their TFSO Calculation Sheet

   o   Termination/Retirement Information Form
    
	( told them to have sig's and where on the form)

   o   Notice of Right to Continue/Convert Coverage 

   o   TFSO Benefits Authorization

	(asked them to bring a paystub with them)

   o   Group Life Insurance Beneficiary Designation Form
      

   o   Outplacement Registration form

Their termination date will be - date they were to be teminated

It then went on to say if they were a member of the Restricted Stock Option 
Program, and they wished to exercise their TFSO right to accelerate five years
of stock options, they must notify Investor Services no later than June 27, 
1990 and where to contact whom 
    
It then went on to say to please make every effort to make it to this 
    appointment due to the large numbers of employees electing TFSO, 
    their ability to be flexible is significantly diminished.
         



    

    I question the value of exit interviews in general, and even more so if
    conducted by personnel.  That would be my biggest single complaint
    about DEC.
    
    Pushing 19 years myself....I found George's farewell message touching.
    I can remember also when I couldn't wait to get to work in the morning,
    but that was about 14 years ago.  Now I can hardly wait to get out in
    the evening.
    
    The "3000" were volunteers??  That I seriously doubt.  Many people who
    were offered the package, or a transfer, simply had no possible way of
    transferring, and had to accept.  Let's not call that voluntary.

    re .21
    
      ... and many of us who volunteered for the package, were refused!!
    
    I've been here 15 years and remember the days when even a 1 hour
    and 15 minute ride did not discourage me from coming to work.  Now
    I too cannot wait for the end of each day. 

>>>  <<< Note 1140.22 by CRBOSS::CURCIO "Sauna_Rat, In the Heat of the Night" >>>

    
>>>      ... and many of us who volunteered for the package, were refused!!
    
I also know several people who volunteered for the package but were 
told that their group was not eligible!  Apparently by the rules 
people who leave cannot be replaced, thus shrinking the size of the
manager's empire (and thats a no-no for career development)........... 

    re .23
    Whether there is a rule that says people who leave through TFSO cannot
    be replaced actually exists - it has indeed happened, in many cases.
    

    if I were to list every instance where some kind of an 'exception'
    to the rules had been granted.....   never mind,  I get to worked
    up just thinking about it!!!!
    
    let's just say, in my opinion, the previous package, as it was managed
    by the business I role up to, promoted bigotry and allow for
    favoritism.
    
    if ecxeptions are to be made for a few, then they have to be made for
    all

I was asked to delete the authors name from the attached memo.
    
    In reference to  .11, most of the people I knew who have left were not
    volunteers in any normal sense of the word.
    
    I'm going to miss this guy.....and I think Digital will miss him too. 
    They just won't know it.
    
    pope,
    
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     16-Aug-1990 06:34pm EDT
                                          

TO:  JIM POPE @AKO


Subject: Last A1 Message..



Hello Jim,



I thought you were to be back at work this week (my last).. But, I 
guess all time spend away right now would be `happy time'.. how things 
have changed..

Well I'm going to have a very quiet day.. Just a few forms to sign, 
credit cards to hand back.. and then out.. It has been a very lonely 
time.. other than a few close associates and friends, others seem to 
avoid us.. Management appears not to be able to wait to get us out of 
here.. we seem to be an embarrassment..

I guess I'm saying its not like I've seen before, nor what I'd imagine 
it would be like after 15 years..

I thought of sending a note to Mr. Olsen to tell him how low his once 
great company has sunk in the way it deals with people.. But what's the 
use?.. I think he knows, and If he doesn't my memo will be wasted any 
way..

It is amazing though to me what incredible `hold' the `past' 
experience and greatness that was Digital has had on me.. Over night I 
had a dream.. it was probably half dream half awake.. in it I cried 
about this event.. But there were no tears when I woke-up..

Enough of that.. I have two firm job offers that "the ball is on your 
feet".. One is with the ..............................!!. as soon as 
I mentioned I was leaving Dec they `made' a job for me.. and the other 
is with Mitsui..

I will try and delay starting a new job for a while.. there are other 
possibilities as well.. So in that respect it appears I will not have 
any problems..

As I mentioned in the previous memo I don't seem to have your address 
for corresponding.. although it will not be as easy without A1, I 
still would like to ... I hope you might continue to send to me any good 
articles like the MIT one.. One of the Jobs I'm awaiting on is with an 
American Mgmt consulting firm.. The add I responded to did not 
identify it.. but its one of the main Quality gurus I think..

Anyhow.. All the best and I hope to hear from you soon..

Best regards 

    I am leaving DEC.

    In the spirit of short notes, let me say that my learning and 
    growing experience obtained while working at Digital has been 
    tremendous and progressive, and far exceeded my expectations.

    My intent is to return to what I was doing for years prior to 
    joining Digital -- working on a consultant/"management temp" 
    basis on short-term assignments, both traditional marketing 
    related projects as well as those related to total quality 
    management -- like what is advocated under Dr. Deming and the 
    Malcolm Baldridge Award Program where employees and customers 
    truly are partners in building the enterprise, all affecting 
    continuous improving changes in all processes and products.

    My parting advice to any and all:

    "Seek to attain wisdom
    and always try to do what is ethically right."

    I wish all of you well.

    David Carnell

It is sad to see that many of the more outspoken change agents in this company 
have been forced to leave the company. I'm refering to DTL and now Dave Carnell.

ALthough I may not have agreed with them at all times, and occasionally 
thought they were too verbose and emotional, I did respect their fervent
desire to improve Digital.

    I saw DTL recently. He is living and working in Switzerland, married
    with his first child, a boy, coming up to 1 year old.
    
    	- andy

    Married with his first child?
    
    :-)
    

The English language does not require a comma at that point.

English uses a lot less commas than German; I'm not familiar with Finnish.

Also:  It's "married to", not "married with."

/john


But if you want to pick nits, the comma _before_ "married" should be removed
and replaced with the word "and" or the words "and is".

RE: .31

In fact, given where the commas are in the sentence in .29, one possible
parse of that sentence treats "married with his first child" as a parenthetical
remark about Switzerland, in which case the main part of the sentence ends
up telling us that DTL is living and working in switzerland, a boy, and
coming up to 1 year old.

Oh, the wonder of natural language grammars.

--PSW

>              <<< Note 1140.31 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

> English uses a lot less commas than German; I'm not familiar with Finnish.
               ^^^^^^^^^^

If you want to pick nits, that sentence should read:

"English uses fewer commas than German, ..." 

>If you want to pick nits, that sentence should read:
>
>"English uses fewer commas than German, ..." 
                                       ^
                              That is a comma splice;
			      the semicolon was correct.

In re "fewer commas" vs. "a lot less commas":  According to my dictionary,
"less" and "fewer" are interchangeable, and "a lot" may be used adverbially
to modify the adjective "less."

    If "it" can be counted, it's "few or fewer."
    
    fm
    

    RE: Last few (or is it "less then current reply")

    Nice to see that when we get off the topic we move on to other
    of the great issues of the day. For others who may wonder about
    such things there is a conference of grammar issues at:

Joy of Lexical Discourse	VISA::JOYOFLEX				     838

    			Alfred

    Interesting phenomenon. Perhaps a result of the stressful times?
    
    In the midst of a serious discussion attention is quickly diverted to
    nits about how specific words have been used (or misused). Instead of
    staying focused on the larger issue at hand, we delve into something
    we understand, and can control....words.
    
    Seems that the same phenomenon occurs at all levels. Rather than face
    the major issues head on we get sidetracked and avoid making decisions.
    
    Saw a great quote yesterday, to the effect that "people often mistake
    poor management for destiny".
    
    /Thorgan
    

    
    How dare you, torpedo this rathole! In keeping, with our company,s cost
    saving effort we must, use many less commas and learn how to, position,
    then, strategically, in our exit interviews.
    

re -.3:

Actually, JOKUR::GRAMMAR is a more appropriate conference than JOYOFLEX.

RE: .34

>In re "fewer commas" vs. "a lot less commas":  According to my dictionary,
>"less" and "fewer" are interchangeable,

Your dictionary is wrong, then.  To quote from page 51 of Strunk and White's
"The Elements of Style", entry for "less" in the "misused words and
expressions" chapter:

	LESS.  Should not be misused for FEWER.

	[incorrect:] He had less men than in the previous campaign.

	[correct:] He had fewer men than in the previous campaign.

	LESS refers to quantity, FEWER to number.  "His troubles are
	less than mine" means "His troubles are not so great as mine."
	"His troubles are fewer than mine" means "His troubles are not
	so numerous as mine."

--PSW

>      <<< Note 1140.40 by PSW::WINALSKI "Careful with that VAX, Eugene" >>>

>Your dictionary is wrong, then.  To quote from page 51 of Strunk and White's
>"The Elements of Style", entry for "less" in the "misused words and
>expressions" chapter:

This sounds like an American publication. Andy is from the UK, and presumably
speaks British English. British English is closer to International English
than American English is, and as this is an international forum we should 
perhaps consult a guide to British or International English. I make no
claims to have perfect English either, Scotland has a different variety!

I leave you to judge which sounds better:

>	LESS refers to quantity, FEWER to number.  "His troubles are
The number 5 is fewer than the number 6
The number 5 is less than the number 6

Craig.

Re:         <<< Note 1140.41 by SYSTEM::COCKBURN "Craig Cockburn" >>>

>I leave you to judge which sounds better:
>
>>	LESS refers to quantity, FEWER to number.  "His troubles are
>The number 5 is fewer than the number 6
>The number 5 is less than the number 6

How about "The number 5 is lower than the number 6"?  :-)
                           ^^^^^
-  David

    Re:
    
>I leave you to judge which sounds better:
>
>>	LESS refers to quantity, FEWER to number.  "His troubles are
>The number 5 is fewer than the number 6
>The number 5 is less than the number 6
    
    I think the assertion that LESS requires to quantity, FEWER to number
    is still correct. The number 5 is a numeric quantity so the above could
    be rephrased:
    
    The numeric quantity 5 is less than the numeric quantity 6
    
    whereas if you have a bunch of things that you're counting then you
    you use FEWER.
    
    Eg
    
    Jack has 2 balls, Jane as 0 balls. In order words Jane has fewer balls
    than Jack.
    
    Now you may have heard the same phrase with less substituted for fewer
    but that has a different meaning. It is referring to quantity of some
    attribute like courage.
    
    Dave
    

The Prentice-Hall handbook for writers says:  "Fewer, Less.  _Fewer_ refers
to number.  In formal English _less_ refers only to degree or quantity.  In
informal English _less_ is sometimes used to refer to number."

Fowler (most British) says that it is a modern tendency to restrict "less"
to contexts not referring to number, but that it is still correct in certain
cases with certain plural nouns dealing with mass quantities; the examples
given as correct are "less troops" and "less clothes."

Ainsley from down under gives her two bits worth.	

With regard to the example.

If Jane has 0 balls she has nothing.  For Jane to have fewer or less	
balls than Jack she would need to have 1 ball.

Therefore the example in my view should read:

Jack has 2 balls, Jane has 1 ball, therefore Jan has 1 less ball than Jack.



However between the two they now have a cluster of balls.


"Anyone for tennis"

RE: .41

This particular point of usage (less vs. fewer) is the same in American English
and in British English.  See .44.


>I leave you to judge which sounds better:
>
>>	LESS refers to quantity, FEWER to number.  "His troubles are
>The number 5 is fewer than the number 6
>The number 5 is less than the number 6

"Less than" in your two example sentences is a completely different denotation
of the word "less".  It is not the denotation that we have been discussing
in this note.  "Less than" is an adjective phrase with a specific meaning
in Mathematics.  It plays no part in the "less" vs. "fewer" usage debate.

--PSW

RE: .45

>If Jane has 0 balls she has nothing.  For Jane to have fewer or less	
>balls than Jack she would need to have 1 ball.

Zero balls is always fewer balls than 1 ball.

>Therefore the example in my view should read:
>
>Jack has 2 balls, Jane has 1 ball, therefore Jan has 1 less ball than Jack.

The sentence should read:

Jack has 2 balls, Jane has 1 ball, therefore Jane has 1 fewer balls than Jack.

(1) We are talking about number, rather than quantity, so "few" should be
used, not "less".

(2) We are talking about Jane, not Jan.

--PSW

Let's PLEASE get back on the subject of this topic.


Bob
co-mod DIGITAL