The point of the finer, pedantic questions of English fluency is to be a marker of social class.
It is, in fact, perfectly understandable to say “less errors” rather than “fewer errors”, except insofar as doing so marks one as “uneducated” and déclassé compared to someone who uses the “correct” usage. Of course, this particular class marker is less meaningful now that it’s too widely known—it’s more likely a marker of someone being a member of an anxious and pretentious tier of the middle class by now.
The pointless difficulty is, in fact, the point. For similar reasons, the word “ain’t” and the double negative are perfectly well-attested usages; they just exist primarily within specific dialects that are not socially prestigious. (Of course, blatant and well-known markers of class status are seen as stuffy and pretentious, which is why politicians tend to code-switch into more “folksy” dialects.
As for competing with Mandarin, I’m sure the Chinese upper classes are just as capable of telling each other apart from the rabble.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with some Scottish bloke. He said he doesn't understand why his Polish girlfriend keeps learning English when she speaks it perfectly well. 'That is simple,' I replied, 'suppose you're learning French. Is your learning goal to sound like a Scotsman who's learnt French, or is it to sound like someone from Paris?' From his point of view it was an apparent pursuit of social prestige while his girlfriend has likely been following the most obvious learning goal. It is like mastering any other medium.
It is, in fact, perfectly understandable to say “less errors” rather than “fewer errors”, except insofar as doing so marks one as “uneducated” and déclassé compared to someone who uses the “correct” usage. Of course, this particular class marker is less meaningful now that it’s too widely known—it’s more likely a marker of someone being a member of an anxious and pretentious tier of the middle class by now.
The pointless difficulty is, in fact, the point. For similar reasons, the word “ain’t” and the double negative are perfectly well-attested usages; they just exist primarily within specific dialects that are not socially prestigious. (Of course, blatant and well-known markers of class status are seen as stuffy and pretentious, which is why politicians tend to code-switch into more “folksy” dialects.
As for competing with Mandarin, I’m sure the Chinese upper classes are just as capable of telling each other apart from the rabble.