Language desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 13[edit]

Incorrect correction?[edit]

The following "correction" was made (here)

From: ... it was launched with only 12 aboard, the least number of occupants to escape in a boat that night.
To: ... it was launched with only 12 aboard, the fewest occupants to escape in a boat that night.

Edit summary: (grammar/usage - 'occupants' is a countable noun)

Although I am 83.7% certain the original text was correct, I don't want to undo the "correction" without a proper explanation in the edit summary -- or, am I wrong? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity is key. Either one seems grammatically correct, but the second one sounds better, being less wordy. I might also say "the fewest occupants to escape in any one boat that night." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it something like that. In both places where the sentence occurs. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary does a fair job of explaining why, in traditional prescriptive grammar, you and Bugs are wrong. Henry ^Flower 09:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, why not say "the smallest number of occupants to escape in any one boat"? Dbfirs 09:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Least number of, smallest number of, and fewest are all saying the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but we are looking for the clearest expression that maintains old grammar rules. Dbfirs 11:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the original edit summary is silly: if a noun is countable, you can use "the number of" in front of it. "Bananas" -- "The number of bananas". That is not a good enough explanation for removing "number of". I think it is just a matter of preference. --Lgriot (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”The fewest” is correct but throws my brain briefly into a garden-pathy mode. I would say “the smallest number of people to escape in one boat...” Temerarius (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the lifeboats launched that night it held the fewest occupants—12—though its capacity was 40. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Word[edit]

Lets say I know a particular language. I am not an expert in that language, but I can speak and understand enough, so that I am able to survive in the country where that language is spoken. What is the word that can be used to describe my knowledge of that language?

Similarly I don't know how to repair computers, cars but I know little bit to fix some general problems, then I don't have to take the help of repair service to fix minor problems. I will take professional help, when I know I can't repair some major problem. The same word can be used to describe my knowledge of repairing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enterthedragonrider (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working knowledge (see also here for a better one) is a word I would use. --Jayron 32 17:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpism seems to be an accepted term for limited linguistic / intellectual skills. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the question. —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]