6 ms·

Nit Pick feedback: it should read: “the right _number_ of features”, not “_amount_ of features”. Other than that, love the look of the site :)

littlestymaar 2y ago
Non native speaker here, can you detail why the later is incorrect?
- cole-k 2y ago
  I'm guessing that "amount" is not quantized ("number" is). Let me be absolutely clear that most native speakers will not notice the distinction (even pedants like me missed this one). You'll also see people being pedantic about "less" versus "fewer," e.g. complaining about the "12 items or less" line being improper usage since items are quantized and therefore it should be "12 items or fewer."
  - rpdillon 2y ago
    Yes, less vs fewer always catches my ear. If you can count it, it's 'fewer', if not, it's 'less'.
- Alex63 2y ago
  It's probably mostly idiomatic. For native English-speakers it is more natural to use "number" when talking about things that are counted units that would be represented by integers (like marbles, or children, or features). "Amount" would be more appropriate when talking about something that you measure and represent with a floating point number (like butter, or gasoline/petrol, or risk). But an English-speaker will understand what you mean if you say "amount of features" instead of "number of features." And since we're being picky, it should be "the latter is correct", not "the later is correct."
- CharlesW 2y ago
  "Number" is correct when referring to countable items (like "features"), while "amount" is correct for non-countable things (like "water" or "time").
- whiddershins 2y ago
  Sorry, sibling responses still aren’t quite answering this correctly. Number is for countable distinct things, and amount is for a quantity of a single thing. (Often a substance) So a number of sticks, a number of socks, a number of people. A number of eggs. An amount of flour, sugar, water, money, time. A number of minutes equals an amount of time.
  - jaktet 2y ago
    > A number of minutes equals an amount of time This is short and succinct and sums it up pretty well
quartesixte 2y ago
Counterpoint: I know grammatically it isn't the most correct, but I don't see anything non-idiomatic about "amount of features". Reason: "Just the right amount" is a set, idiomatic expression. "Just the right amount of ___" is just extending the expression. IMO extending idiomatic expressions exempts it from a lot of the formal word-pairing conventions in English. But I'm no linguist.
- crashmat 2y ago
  I think amount of is usually used for 'continuous' (I'm not sure on the word) substances like flour, water, or salt, rather than multiples of discreet objects.
  - quartesixte 2y ago
    I can also have: Just the right amount of cats Just the right amount of internet points Just the right amount of chutzpah
    - chucksmash 2y ago
      Implying chutzpah is a discrete variable, and chutzpah is never discreet
- akaij 2y ago
  Depending on the flavour of the linguist, they could say "as long as the correct meaning is conveyed, go wild" :)

littlestymaar 2y ago

Non native speaker here, can you detail why the later is incorrect?

cole-k 2y ago
I'm guessing that "amount" is not quantized ("number" is). Let me be absolutely clear that most native speakers will not notice the distinction (even pedants like me missed this one). You'll also see people being pedantic about "less" versus "fewer," e.g. complaining about the "12 items or less" line being improper usage since items are quantized and therefore it should be "12 items or fewer."
- rpdillon 2y ago
  Yes, less vs fewer always catches my ear. If you can count it, it's 'fewer', if not, it's 'less'.
Alex63 2y ago
It's probably mostly idiomatic. For native English-speakers it is more natural to use "number" when talking about things that are counted units that would be represented by integers (like marbles, or children, or features). "Amount" would be more appropriate when talking about something that you measure and represent with a floating point number (like butter, or gasoline/petrol, or risk). But an English-speaker will understand what you mean if you say "amount of features" instead of "number of features." And since we're being picky, it should be "the latter is correct", not "the later is correct."
CharlesW 2y ago
"Number" is correct when referring to countable items (like "features"), while "amount" is correct for non-countable things (like "water" or "time").
whiddershins 2y ago
Sorry, sibling responses still aren’t quite answering this correctly. Number is for countable distinct things, and amount is for a quantity of a single thing. (Often a substance) So a number of sticks, a number of socks, a number of people. A number of eggs. An amount of flour, sugar, water, money, time. A number of minutes equals an amount of time.
- jaktet 2y ago
  > A number of minutes equals an amount of time This is short and succinct and sums it up pretty well

quartesixte 2y ago

Counterpoint: I know grammatically it isn't the most correct, but I don't see anything non-idiomatic about "amount of features". Reason: "Just the right amount" is a set, idiomatic expression. "Just the right amount of ___" is just extending the expression. IMO extending idiomatic expressions exempts it from a lot of the formal word-pairing conventions in English. But I'm no linguist.

crashmat 2y ago
I think amount of is usually used for 'continuous' (I'm not sure on the word) substances like flour, water, or salt, rather than multiples of discreet objects.
- quartesixte 2y ago
  I can also have: Just the right amount of cats Just the right amount of internet points Just the right amount of chutzpah
  - chucksmash 2y ago
    Implying chutzpah is a discrete variable, and chutzpah is never discreet
akaij 2y ago
Depending on the flavour of the linguist, they could say "as long as the correct meaning is conveyed, go wild" :)