The website said, “2.1—The amount of full-time jobs minimum wage workers need to work to be able to afford an average one bedroom apartment.”

I appreciated the factoid. The wording annoyed me.

The use of “amount” in the web post reflects a growing tendency. I regularly see it in news stories and student work. I hear it on radio and television and in conversations with colleagues, who—as educated university faculty members—I would expect to know better.

The Associated Press Stylebook (56th edition, 2022-2024) says:

“Use amount for things that cannot be counted individually: the amount of milk in the refrigerator, the amount of courage it takes to climb Mount Everest. For things that can be counted individually, use number: The number of soldiers in the army, the number of books in the library.”

Other style references define the same distinction. My Microsoft Word grammar checker highlights “amount” and suggests “number” when the sentence refers to items that can be counted. The grammar checker explains that “some words are similar but are used differently.” Nevertheless, the misuse of “amount” persists.

I have observed that many people younger than 45 use “amount” instead of “number” when they refer to things that can be counted. For example, three second-year graduate students I worked with this year all wrote “amount of people” in early drafts of their final papers.

Because college-educated people commonly use “amount” instead of “number,” I suspect the distinction will soon be lost for most speakers and writers. Still, I think the different word use is helpful. That thought probably makes me a curmudgeon. Now that I’ve retired from full-time work, I have more time to be grumpy about such annoying language changes.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon