Counter reference: a dictionary which tells you what words mean.
Oxford
NOUN
A quantity of something, especially the total of a thing or things
in number, size, value, or extent:
Collins
NOUN
1) extent;
quantity; supply
2) the total of two or more quantities; sum
3) the full value, effect, or significance of something
4) a principal sum plus the interest on it, as in a loan
Websters (Websters is shit, but these things look better in threes)
NOUN
a : the total
number or quantity.
b : the quantity at hand or under consideration <has an enormous amount of energy>
I didn't do any research, unless you count a qualification from Cambridge University allowing me to teach English grammar, three years of experience teaching proficiency level grammar and six months of admittedly half arsed preparatory study for an MA in Applied Linguistics. *Violently ejaculates ego all over the keyboard*
Now impressive as cribbing half a paragraph off the internet is, you've failed to understand the rule (which does not infact exist, but we'll allow that to slide) that you are quoting. Actually, you've failed to understand a number of fundamentals of how language works - but I suspect you've done that intentionally in the name of pedantry, so I'll intentionally ignore that and meet you on your own battleground.
You are partially correct; amount is favored for uncountable and unquantifiable nouns - but what you have missed is that this rule is only fixed when referencing rigidly determined quantities - typically those that are minimal or known.
To summarize, if I were to reference "the amount of legs on a horse" then that would clearly be inaccurate, and would set off warning bells in the head of any English speaker. "The amount of people watching TV right now" does not set off the same warnings and would be accepted in common parlance, since the quantity is essentially undefinable. To take it a step further, "The amount of bacteria in your kitchen" is in fact prefered parlance for the scientifically minded, in spite of the fact that bacteria is clearly a plural and countable noun. Since the number of bacteria in most circumstances in undefined and unknowable, amount becomes perfectly acceptable.
Now we run Sam's original comment through these two tests. Was he referencing a large number? Yes he was, he even prefixed it with the word "huge". Was the number he was referencing unknowable? Slightly more ambiguous, but yeah, pretty much. Two for two, making his usage of amount over number acceptable from the perspective of grammatical pedantry.
Obviously an actual linguist doesn't apply these tests, which is why grammar nazidom is inhabited exclusively by people who don't understand how language works and think black people are using auxiliary verbs "incorrectly" when they allow ebonic tendencies into their vernacular.
In other words, disagree with anything I say and you're a racist.
You were close before. This one is utter nonsense.
The Oxford Dictionary of collocations lists 'large' and 'huge' alongside both 'number' and 'amount'. I'm not going to confirm because they're in a box on the other side of the room, but so does every other reputable dictionary of collocations.
Since the lexis dictionaries are accessible without having to strain my lung capacity...
Oxford
ADJECTIVE
Extremely large; enormous:
Collins
Adjective
extremely large in size, amount, or scope
Websters
ADJECTIVE
very large : very great in size, amount, or degree
So it means what Sam intended it to mean, and collocates with the word Sam used it alongside. You have no argument here.
Not grammatically it doesn't. It's a comparative structure, not an implicative structure. If I make the sentence "You're an idiot" (legitimate example, not a cheap dig, I don't think you're an idiot) then the implication is that I consider myself smarter than you - but the sentence does not say that. You cannot attach an implicit meaning to a sentence and then claim inaccuracy of the sentence based upon that. You could perhaps argue inelegancy (though in this case you'd have little ground to stand on there either) but not inaccuracy as you attempted to.
A comparative simply defines the relative state of two nouns. It does not, in a grammatical sense, attach any measurable degree of any quality to either one of them.
In the case we're discussing, it doesn't even attach an implicit meaning. A eight year old child could glean from Sam's post that he probably wasn't endeavoring to call himself stupid, since the entire fucking sentence in question runs contrary to that. If you thought he was then I'd have to revise my earlier assessment of you. I doubt you do, I think you're attempting pedantry for the purpose of dickishness - but if you're deliberately lowering your IQ to sub critical levels in the name of finding an error, then you're doing pedantry wrong.
I'm going to assume that you got distracted by something and didn't actually intend to type "less colder". And the question of "sounds better" is immaterial to the debate. Poetry is, almost by definition, subjective in nature - and as such marking something as incorrect or inappropriate on these grounds is a meaningless waste of time.
***
Whilst I'm on a roll; I'll give "the talk", because CM Punk's grammar slam gives me a nice opening.
CM Punk is actually inaccurate when he discusses the issue of literally vs figuratively. He may have been partially accurate at the time of filming, though as memory serves he was not.
If you look literally up in the majority of contemporary dictionaries you will see it listed as a hyperbolic auto-antonym (a word that means the opposite of itself such as dust, sanction or resign). This is because that is how the word is most frequently used in contemporary parlance, and this is what those who attempt to be pedantic about grammar or lexis most commonly misunderstand.
The rules of grammar and lexis exist not to dictate how language is to be used, but to attempt to explain how language is used currently. Unless you're speaking Esperanto then your language predates its rules by hundred of years, and the rules have changed over time as the language has.
If something is accepted and understood common parlance, and doesn't leave room for misunderstanding then it is accurate use of the English language, because that's how language works. Being pedantic about a sentence you understood perfectly well, and suspect everyone else also understood perfectly well, simply doesn't make sense outside of the context of trolling.
The 'literally' example left a slightly bad taste in my mouth since I felt it failed one of the prescribed tests, but contemporary lexis outvoted me by a ratio of 335000000:1, so I guess I was literally on fire in this thread.
