There's a television commercial advertising pills which you have to take two of per day, as opposed to these others which you take eight of per day. The narrator says it's "four times fewer". Is that accurate?

Linguistically it sounds kinda funny. I might go with "one-fourth as often" but I don't think there's anything wrong with it mathematically. What would you think "four times fewer" than eight would mean?

it's bogus from the standpoint that it really depends on the size of the dosage of the active ingredient(s) (among other things), as opposed to the number of pills. but that should be obvious, I suppose.
-ron o.

Good point. But OTOH there's something to be said for taking fewer pills even if they are a higher dosage.

Hm. Well. I have heard n times more than something, so I guess n times fewer would mean the opposite. It just sounded strange.

What I meant by saying it sounded funny, linguistically.

In my brain, mathematically, "four times fewer" is nonsensical. What would one time fewer mean? Four times fewer would be better phrased, for me, as "one fourth of".

A bit OT, am I the only one that grinds my teeth when 'fewer' and 'less' and 'under' are synonymized? "Less calories" ~ aaaargh! "Under 300 calories" ~ grrrrr! I know that common usage, by definition, isn't incorrect, but . . . .

(less fat ~ no problem)

What's the difference between 'four times fewer' and 'four times less'? Is it between time and substance? Could it have been used it in this case? We only have one word for both.

For that matter what would "one time more" mean? I do agree that "one fourth of" would be better.

As I hear this commercial, the narrator means that you take 2 instead of 8 pills - one fourth of the number of pills - not that you take pills one time a day instead of five times - which is four times fewer. Obviously, the narrator is using 'times' in the arithmetical sense and tries to invert the multiplication by adding 'fewer'. I hate that.


As tsuwm points out, fewer pills does not mean less medicine or less pain relief. If I'd just quit grinding my teeth, I might have fewer headaches.

when 'fewer' and 'less' and 'under' are synonymized?

What the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage has to say about less, fewer (link). This rule was invented in 1770 by Robert Baker in his Reflections on the English Language (link). As the MWDEU entry goes on to show, the earliest examples of less being used with countables goes back, at least, to King Alfred in his Latin to Old English translation in 888 CE. Baker was another of those cranky 18th century linguists who hoisted their opinions on usage in rules of correctness.

Another interesting thing about less is that it is the suppletive comparative form of little. The form lesser is a double comparative akin to betterer.

And, somehow, against all logic, more works both for counting (versus fewer) and measuring (versus less). How can this be?

...which leads us right to much and many.
I couldn't take many more pills than I already take. I had many fewer headaches when I had much less stress. How much more of this can we stand?

I don't understand why these words bug me too much when they're not used the way I prefer them to be.