the least amount of money

It's ok.
But more commonly we say
eg Try to get it for as little as possible.

The pattern "least amount of + uncountable noun" is in common use and would be widely accepted. I wonder whether I am alone in questioning its absolute grammatical correctness.

GPYI wonder whether I am alone in questioning its absolute grammatical correctness.

So far, yes, but there are sure to be more replies.

CalifJimI thought "number of" + countable and "amount of" + uncountable were fairly uncontroversial.

I have no qualms about "amount of + uncountable". It's the "least amount of" aspect that sounds very slightly off to me. I can't exactly put my finger on why though.

GPYleast amount of

Hmm. I think I see what you mean. "most amount of" has an awkwardness about it as well. "greatest amount of" sounds better to my ear, but I don't know what should be substituted for "least".

CJ

CalifJimbut I don't know what should be substituted for "least".

Wouldn't it be "smallest amount of ..."?

Least < greatest (quantity, bounds)
Smallest < largest (size)

So least number and smallest amount? However, I think popular usage accepts either indiscriminately.

My feeling is that "least number" is a special usage that does not transfer to most other nouns. I also feel that, over most of its usage range, "least" pairs more naturally with "most" than with "greatest". Less, least / more, most. While we say "less money" and "least money", we do not say "less amount of money", therefore arguably should not say "least amount of money". Nor, as CJ said, do we s

GPYMy feeling is that "least number" is a special usage that does not transfer to most other nouns.

Just to clarify this ... Here I was talking about "least number" in the accepted mathematical sense, not in the phrase "least number of" (e.g. "least number of cars/people/etc."), which I would consider dubious.

GPY CalifJimbut I don't know what should be substituted for "least".Wouldn't it be "smallest amount of ..."?

Oh. Yes! What was I thinking?

CJ