Grammar

I think it's become such an epidemic that average people don't actually notice the difference. As a matter of fact, the same grammar mistake made it into a current Mercedes-Benz commercial voiced by none other than Jon Hamm.

Appearing "snooty and out-of-touch" seems to be the greatest horror in the US these days.

There is a grammatically correct alternative way of reading "More switches, less hitches".
The new switches may have none of the hitches that plagued the old switches, so they are less (minus) the hitches...

Fully justified! That´s not a sentence. Simply, a statement in reply to your question. Why is it justified? Because "New" is a strong statement. Those switches are not "newer"; they are NEW. "Fewer"? Fewer than what? "Fewer" is comparative. "Less" is quantitative. Very clear. Today I'm surprised the copywriter didn´t write "No hitches". I presume that sign is not recent. BAM

I realise that incredulity is not an argument and that it's rude to shout, but WHAT!? It's not a deliberate mistake, it's not an accidental mistake. It's not a mistake! Does the author of this article really believe that someone is not entitled to use correct English unless they know that Professors Liberman and Pullum approve it? Maybe the copywriter just knows how to speak her native tongue. No one says 'fewer stuff'. That's a REAL rule of English. But plenty of very good writers in carefully edited prose use 'less' with countable nouns.

I died a little bit inside when I read it.

I just finished reading RLG's book You Are What You Speak and I'm pretty sure he says he's cool with it.

I must say that the grammar argument was somewhat abstruse to me; I assumed that what Johnson objected to was the use of the term "less hitches", 'hitch' defined as 'fasten - attach - tie', and therefore less "hitches" meaning less fastening/attachment/ties between subway cars. Could be considered humorous, could be in poor taste, but regardless, seemed that this was a more interesting thing to comment on. Perhaps someone has already made this point, but I have not read through all of the comments.

I concur with you. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be invariably resort to the 'populist' stance rather than an educational/honest one, for all the obvious reasons. Just like their opportunistic 'political' brothers. Sad..

I've often wondered about why we -- and I include myself in this category -- tend to get so pedantic about fewer vs. less. The opposite of both is "more"; the language suffers no ambiguity from this. So, if "less" should replace "fewer", it would in no way diminish the expressive power of the language. While "less" with a count noun still sounds cringe-worthy to my ears, it may now or soon be used often enough to be considered standard usage. Let us try to be less pedantic, and make fewer objections, so that the language may be more capable of adapting.

Errr, I'lll be honest. I did not see anything grammatically wrong with it until you pointed it out. Hmmm...

It was an ignorant , not uncommon, misuse of "less" when "fewer" is correct. It is not unlike the frequent airline announcement that "we will be boarding momentarily". How many aircraft would depart empty if that meant what it said ? Want to try "burglarise " as well ?

I believe it is ignorance, as seems to be the case with so many people who do not understand the distinction. I don't agree with your first exception to the fewer/less rule: although "seven dollars less " is correct, it is an elliptical phrase for "seven dollars less THAN something". You would still say "Seven fewer dollars."

It is sad to see distinctions such as less/fewer fading from the language. Over time this one will probably disappear, but we don't have to accelerate its demise. It is a shame that the MTA seems to be intent upon just that.

Sir-

Normal people really don't care. Despite two advanced degrees, I had no idea that the use of the term "less" above was incorrect. The english language evolves and need not follow silly grammatical rules - deal with it.

Martocciad

Pam Peters, in ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’, talks a great deal of sense on this as on so much else. The choice, she concludes, ‘was and is essentially a stylistic choice between the more formal “fewer” and the more spontaneous “less”. “Fewer" draws attention to itself, whereas “less” shifts the focus on to its more significant neighbours.’

I’m really rather surprised to find Johnson making such a fuss about it.

As English becomes more solidified as the lingua franca, it slowly is going to lose superfluous words that most languages do not accomodate: ask a German about our distinction between 'less' and 'fewer', or 'much' and 'many', makes sense...
In this case, I think it's also an echo of the famous Bud Light ad:
'Same Taste. Less Filling.'
The copyist was a beer drinker.

LC,

Re my own comment on Mohawk: I wrote poorly. You realize, of course, you are not Mohawk (Last two sentences were confusing). Look forward to reading your post here there and evreywhere. :)

The medium is the message, thus "less" is more apt (and satisfying,) because it's a syllable shorter than "fewer".

If only they could have credibly said "new switches; no hitches"; if only new switches could guarantee few hitches... That, I think, is more compelling a message than less hitches (or for that matter fewer hitches), as "less" can still be a huge number, and "fewer" should in fact say fewer than what (e.g. fewer than 5000 a day)...
Bad message. And I would still prefer "fewer", if "few" won't do in this case.

Less is more. Every time.