On NPR this morning, I again heard this phrase: Fewer employees are working fewer hours...
This almost always makes my mind do a doubletake. Do they mean the average hours for all employees are dropping (could indicate less productivity), or that a decreasing number of employees are working part time (could indicate more productivity)?
Any ideas (not on this sentence per se, but on the use of fewer...fewer)?
Brandon
I take it to mean that they have reduced two things, the number of employees, and the number of hours per employee, thus drastically reducing the number of man(!)-hours. That sort of thing.
It seems to me that the phrase means that the number of employees working less that 40 hours per week has decreased.
I saw it in a more negative light - previously they had more full-time employees - now they are expecting fewer employees to do all the same work, with the additional challenge of the remaining employees only working fewer hours each. (Cynicism brought on by first-hand experience.) Without the rest of the sentence, it's hard to tell.
To say it is an inelegant construction...
But if we turn it on its head and say "More people are working more hours", I suspect we would all understand the same thing - a greater number are working overtime.
As soon as such a construction makes you stop and think, it becomes self defeating as a tool of communication, doesn't it?
The meaning of the commentary was clear. They are reducing the workforce and cutting the work force's hours. But I'm troubled by the usage. There seems to be a high level of potential ambiguity.
Maybe written by an aspiring political speech-writer??
Brandon
…such a construction makes you stop and think…
And we wouldn't want that, would we.
About the form, in news reports - no! the substance: yes!
Sorry, mav. Couldn't resist (I'm weak; I deserve to be punished).
Are you hearing this, E?
AnnaS's packing checklist:
___ favorite chair
___ clothes
___ Grandma's linens
___ leather goods
___ whips
___ chains
___ monogrammed towels ("S" and "M"*)
* Sabbath and Mabel
?
But whips and chains excite me.
that's more than we want to know!
(unless of course you're setting up a web cam and we can all watch... free x rated internet!)
Thanks, emanuela. That's at least the second time the elusive E has surfaced. Mav...
Yes-- have you noticed, Faldage? It your love perhaps planning a vacation to wales? do we a three-some going on here? or is mav trying to steal away your lady love.. (perhaps he already has a set of whips and chains)
and the there is all the traffic in PM's.. who knows what going on in private!
the elusive E E as in Elizabeth? Better known here as AnnaStrophic? Currently the other half (with Faldage) of our Dynamic Duo? Just asking.
I'll stick with my personal *assumption that E is artfully a B, and the definition of E is still around the corner and over the next horizon.
I've been welcomed back by so many of you. Thanks.
Now, especially in light of these recent postings, I need to pay much more attention to the sexes of you all. Honestly, I think I've let my mind artificially construct genders based on who-knows-what (subconscious interpretations of things mentioned in threads) for those whose names aren't gender-obvious.
If I want to wink-wink (or even understand others winking), I'd better get on board. (this reminds me of a horrible experience I had reading a book; for several pages, the narrator's gender was not mentioned, and I unwittingly constructed a gender. When it became apparent I was wrong, I had a hard time going forward with the plot because all my mental constructions were failing me...)
Brandon
Now you've opened the flood gates...
Whos gender have you misguessed?
this reminds me of a horrible experience I had reading a book; for several pages, the narrator's gender was not mentioned, and I unwittingly constructed a gender. When it became apparent I was wrong, I had a hard time going forward with the plot because all my mental constructions were failing me.
That's nothing. Once I totally mistook a narrator's species. I thought he was a dog, but then it turned out he was a human and the cat's name was Cat. The cat's name was what confused me.
Nope, this was after I joined. How did I know someone would say that?
Did you check my profile before you dubbed me
"Mr." O'Neill, Brandon?
ON FEWER...FEWER:
Maybe written by an aspiring political speech-writer?? Sure...it's called ownership and management. They've been downsizing for years, and now that they're complaining about the decreased workforce and hourly output they want to work enough ambiguity into the statement so then can shirk responsibility for causing it! Does the word "propoganda" come to mind?
...and if the word used was 'less' instead of 'fewer'... could we make it more or less ultravague.
Someone with more lingustic creativity than I (anyone ackchully) could CAT (combine appropriate threads) together a construction... I know there is one in here... somewhere...
As soon as such a construction makes you stop and think, it becomes self defeating as a tool of communication, doesn't it? Is this the same form of cognitive dissonance that we enjoy when comedians are successful? NTTAWWT
ps - I think you are correct!
I leave this place for a day and you guys descend into the gutter
hi Jackie!Helen, I hadn't considered a threesome, but your suggestion is under review
.
Brandon, what's my gender?
wow,* re: packing list - are you a mind-reader?
OK, enough emoticons for now.
*edit: oops, rather, Sparteye!
AnnaS's packing checklist:
.
.
.
___ monogrammed towels ("S" and "M"*)
This point got me wondering, so I checked with Anna and she said that, no, they weren't labeled "S" and "M", but rather "B" and "D"*. Since this made perfect sense to me I can only assume that you got this confused with something else, Sparteye, although I am hard pressed to say what it might have been.
*For Betsy and David, of course.