Discussion on the use of "Few"

Languages used in Carnatic Music & Literature
Post Reply
Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

Let's discuss Rama Varma and BMK in this thread!

:lol:
ragam-talam wrote:How about this one then: "I expect few people would approve of the new law."
Can this include none? In fact it does.
I answered this already: it does not. Few, if any, includes none, and would be the correct usage.
Or consider this:
A tells B: "Few would believe you."
If it later turns out that nobody believed B, then A can surely say "I told you so!"
I rest my case.
If it turns out to be none, then that is even fewer than I expected!

If I must, I can type out the Oxford Dictionary definition, but I promise you it does not mention "none"

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

OED does not list the meaning 'none' for 'few'...
Don't know whether few can be used as a synonym for none. I guess not..

By the by can you also show the distinction in the use between 'little' vs 'a little' ...
OED also gives the meaning little =not at all, hardly
but when preceded by 'a' means 'somewhat'...

Suji Ram
Posts: 1529
Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 00:04

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Suji Ram »

I think there is a difference when you write
few gimmicks vs a few gimmicks

Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

Yes, there is: in that context, we might say, "few gimmicks" approvingly, and "a few gimmicks" meaning we would rather there were none.

little and a little... context dependent. My first thought was little just means small, whereas "a little" means a small amount of. Then I thought of a little girl!

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

Nick H wrote:I answered this already: it does not. Few, if any, includes none, and would be the correct usage.
Few already means 'hardly any' - the usage 'few, if any' merely stresses the point.
Few contains within it 'none'. Mind you, I am not saying it means none - a subtle difference.
To borrow a mathematical analogy: 'tending to zero'.

Little > 'the music had little impact on him' - means: the music had practically no impact.
If I must, I can type out the Oxford Dictionary definition, but I promise you it does not mention "none"
You need to look at several examples to tease out the meaning in this instance. Not just a simple look-up in a dicitionary.
Few means 'hardly any'. And that includes none.
(again, note: few doesn't equal none, but it includes none.)
Last edited by ragam-talam on 25 Jun 2010, 23:19, edited 1 time in total.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Nick H wrote: If it turns out to be none, then that is even fewer than I expected!
:lol:

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

cmlover wrote:By the by can you also show the distinction in the use between 'little' vs 'a little' ...
The contrast is best brought out through examples:
"There is little merit in his argument" >> means 'his argument has no merit'
vs
"There is a little merit in his argument" >> means 'his argument has some merit - but only a small amount'

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Languages have Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics.
The usage of "few" we talk about here is in pragmatics and not in syntax or semantics.

It is a "passive aggressive" usage. The person who says 'few' wants it to be an aggressive and assertive 'none' but uses a more polite and passive "few". It is also a CYA in case it turns out to be 'not none'. So the correct semantics is 'small number greater than zero' but the implied pragmatics is a passive aggressive 'tending to zero'.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

It appears there is a parallelism between the use of few and a few vs little and a little...

Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

ragam-talam wrote:Few means 'hardly any'. And that includes none.
So, you would see an empty room and say there are few people there? I think you would not.

Few is somewhat relative too, "few among this family" might be one or two; "few among Indians" might be a million!


Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

Interesting; I hadn't realised that few is for countable things, and little is for uncountable things. Not consciously, at any rate: I would never have said that there is only a few tea in the jar!

I think we have the same sort of thing with "less". Pedants hate supermarkets in UK, because, if I can recall this correctly, there will be a check-out queue with a notice saying "Less than five items". They insist that it must be "Fewer than five items".

After a quick google... I can see, from this link, that they are right Fewer or Less?
Last edited by Nick H on 26 Jun 2010, 01:41, edited 1 time in total.

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

Nick H wrote:So, you would see an empty room and say there are few people there? I think you would not.
No, it works in the reverse direction...
If someone said "Few people are left in the room" - then when you take a look inside and find no-one there, their statement remains true.
But if they said "A few people are left in the room" - and you found no-one inside, their statment would be considered false.
It's in this sense that 'few' includes 'none'.
Hope that's clear.

VK has provided an alternative explanation that should throw more light on this.

The key point to note is that 'few' cannot be directly related to numbers as such - it's more a statement of a 'biased belief'. It's as if the speaker is expressing an opinion-of-sorts.

Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

If someone said "Few people are left in the room" - then when you take a look inside and find no-one there, their statement remains true.
No. There had been a few people in the room, so your informer was not lying about his observation, but now there are none.

The situation would be exactly the same if you reached the room to find it filled to capacity with people: there were only a few people when your friend saw the room.

If you continue to insist on the same logic, then you must say that few includes a vast crowd as much as it does none

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

One more try:
Suppose a giant comes to town. And someone says 'few would challenge him to a duel'.
Does this mean at least one person (i.e. non-zero) would challenge the giant?
No!
But your above line of argument would imply that.
If you continue to insist on the same logic, then you must say that few includes a vast crowd as much as it does none
You keep missing the key point here.
'Few' does not refer to numbers at all - at least directly. It's a statement of the bias in the speaker's statement, i.e. the speaker believes 'hardly any' is true. Or, as VK has so eloquently put it - you want to say none, but you state it mildly (CYA, to use VK's lovely phrase!) by saying 'few'.

On the other hand, 'a few' does indicate a small number.
Last edited by ragam-talam on 26 Jun 2010, 02:09, edited 5 times in total.

Suji Ram
Posts: 1529
Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 00:04

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Suji Ram »

Ok, there were a few errors in my review.
But if I said" His/her reveiw had few errors"- does that mean there were no errors. Then I would rather say, "His/her review had no errors". ;)

Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

You keep missing the key point here. 'Few' does not refer to numbers at all. It's a statement of the bias in the speaker's statement, i.e. the speaker believes 'hardly any' is true.
OK, I now understand the source of your misunderstanding! It will save us a lot of time if I have recourse to the dictionary:

(leaving out the etymology and pronunciation stuff)

1. Not many; accounting to a small number (in a few, some few, opp. to 'none at all')
2. Used ... to form a virtual collective noun ...
3. Of a company or number: small
4. Of quantity: Not much

It mentions also the comparative and superlative are fewer and fewest.

I hope now, that I have been able to bring you a better understanding of the English word 'few' :)

Phew! :lol:

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

Phew! :lol:
Phew Indeed. All these meanings refer to 'a few'.
I hope you are not now going to say 'There are few people here' to mean there are a small number (collective etc) of people!?

I can't believe I have to explain all this to an Englishman!
:)

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

I made the same point that NickH made. If you read my post in entirety you would have caught that.
This time the Englishman is right. "few" means >0 but not far beyond that. Quite a few would extend that range. Lot would mean many.

'few people would tackle that problem' means almost none but one or two is meant. If none would tackle that problem say so. If you are not sure then use "few" because there may be a brave soul or two who might attempt that.

Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

That you mahakavi, but we must, I think admit relativity into this. There is a famous rock festival going on in England this weekend: in the unlikely event of, say, a mere ten thousand people turning up, the organisers would rightly complain that "very few people came" or that "only a few turned up"

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by arasi »

Phew! Homonym-wise (tres americain) it means never?? ;)
We come to the lounge to relax and not to relive the dreaded grammar classes of our school days!
The paNDitars box is open--'pundits box--oh, dear! indian word , now a legitimate english word!
We all make mistakes. If we get our message across, then it's fine. It's perhaps a good idea to send a personal mail to the poster than write about it on the forum? Of course, in the sAhitya section, corrections are asked for, at times.
No big deal, but analysing something trivial like this at length may lead to some folks feeling hesitant about writing a review again.
Having said that, I think I hear the bell, thank goodness, and I've to run!

Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

Arasi... We knew what we were getting into. Knowing all the risks, we plunged, headlong, into this fearful onslaught, slugging it out, blow for blow!

It's all Rama Varma's fault, really ;)

Suji Ram
Posts: 1529
Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 00:04

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Suji Ram »

Nick H wrote:
It's all Rama Varma's fault, really ;)
I like that!! ;) ....for his gimmicks...

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by arasi »

Tut tut, Nick! |(

Maketh thou a whipping boy of his royal personage?
And forget the scribe whose fiddling hand wrote of his music?
Nay, this prince is gentle--'off with their heads!' is not his wont,
Callest thyself an englishman or indian as your habits proclaim?
Either way you are doomed, Nicholas!
For english will never leave you, bite your tongue! :)

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

arasi wrote:No big deal, but analysing something trivial like this at length
Hey, maybe this is trivial for you, but not so trivial for others.

Then you say:
Of course, in the sAhitya section, corrections are asked for, at times
Hmm, wonder why you say that! Is it because sahitya is closer to your heart perhaps?
:)

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

mahakavi wrote:"few" means >0 but not far beyond that.
Nope. You are wrong. I have explained in some detail already, you can re-read my earlier posts. Also, VK's post brings out the nuanced meaning quite well.
Let me repeat a question I posed already, but haven't recd a response so far:
Suppose a giant comes to town. And someone says 'few would challenge him to a duel'.
Does this mean at least one person (i.e. non-zero) would challenge the giant?
No!

Few means 'hardly any' and includes none.
See here: A few vs Few
Few, when used without a preceding a, means "very few" or "none at all". On the other hand, a few is used to indicate "not a large number". The difference is subtle, yet there are instances where the two can mean completely opposite things.
And:
Actually, when someone uses the word 'few' without a preceding 'a', they actually mean 'no'. It's a way of putting forward one's opinion. Using the same example, "I have few objections to the proposal" actually means "I have no objections".

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

This quiz page is helpful to understand the distinctions:
http://www.better-english.com/grammar/few.htm

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

ragam-talam wrote:Nope. You are wrong. I have explained in some detail already, you can re-read my earlier posts. Also, VK's post brings out the nuanced meaning quite well.

WOW! You sound very authoritative and sound like Dr. Samuel Johnson. Should I accept you like Boswell did?

Let me repeat a question I posed already, but haven't recd a response so far:
Suppose a giant comes to town. And someone says 'few would challenge him to a duel'.
Does this mean at least one person (i.e. non-zero) would challenge the giant?
No!
You pose a question. You answer it the way you like and you close the chapter. Should we close this thread then?

Few means 'hardly any' and includes none.
Burn all the dictionaries, I suppose!
Using the same example, "I have few objections to the proposal" actually means "I have no objections".
None means "no one, not one" If few means "none" according to you then you should say "few objection" to be grammatically correct. The moment you say "few objections" it means one or more objections
Hope it is clear to you now :grin:

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

Let me quote you the meaning for the entry "few"(courtesy: Webster)
few: adj. 1. not many but more than one: few artists live luxuriously
2. noun. a small number or amount: send me a few
idiom: few and far between. not plentiful
quite a few. a farily large number, many.
Pl don't tell me Webster is wrong.
QED and I rest my case :grin:

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

Folks
This is the language section and not the Lounge..
Hence discussions on grammatical points are quite welcome (except when it gets out of hand :D
We may have a debate on King's English vs American English since Sub has started quoting from Webster!
Perhaps in other parts of the English speaking world the words have different meanings. But we Indians were taught only King's English..

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

mahakavi wrote:None means "no one, not one" If few means "none" according to you then you should say "few objection" to be grammatically correct. The moment you say "few objections" it means one or more objections
'None' can be used with plural verb.
e.g. "I left three pies on the table and now there are none."
Based on this, are you saying that none should also mean greater than zero? (rather, greater than one?)

Let me repeat the question:
Suppose a giant comes to town. And someone says 'few would challenge him to a duel'.
Does this mean at least one person (i.e. non-zero) would challenge the giant?

I will let you answer it this time!
(I am going to be away for the next 4 days, so won't be able to respond for a while.)

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

ragam-talam wrote:'None' can be used with plural verb.
e.g. "I left three pies on the table and now there are none."
Correction: "....now there is none". none means "no one or not one". A typical sentence using none (according to Webster) is None of the members is going. Traditionally "none" was treated as a singular pronoun. When by "none" we mean "not one" or "not any" it is to be followed by a singular verb. Example: Of all my court cases none has been stranger than yours.
Having said that, let me concede that the pronoun none is also permitted to be followed by a plural verb as in: there were two coats on the rack and now there are none.

Based on this, are you saying that none should also mean greater than zero? (rather, greater than one?)
Not based on what you said. Based on what I said my answer remains the same. Few means 1 or more. Refer to my Webster entry that I quoted. For the meaning of "none" see my comment above.

Let me repeat the question:
Suppose a giant comes to town. And someone says 'few would challenge him to a duel'.
Does this mean at least one person (i.e. non-zero) would challenge the giant?
YES! but your "at least" does not make sense. You said "few would"--so one or more might challenge the giant. You seem bent on framing a sentence to entice me to say "yes or no" unconditionally. Still I maintain what I said before. "Few" means (definitely >0) more than one, but not many.
(I am going to be away for the next 4 days, so won't be able to respond for a while.)
While you are away find a Merriam-Webster dictionary and look up the entry under "few"
I can wait till the earth collapses!
Last edited by mahakavi on 26 Jun 2010, 16:14, edited 3 times in total.

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by arasi »

ragam_talam,
First of all, apologies. Lounge ena ninaittEn, idu Languages section ena aRiyAmal! Let me not spoil the 'kAram and sAram of a robust (but not rowdy) discussion! As for Sahitya section, corrections are part of it, sometimes asked for too. You don't have to be a sAhitya kartA to say this ;) For instance, Lakshman often says: corrections welcome.

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

Finallly, to cap it all, Suji Ram (from Seattle?) used the expression "few gimmicks". I will understand it as "some". It is American English. So that is settled. As for the English English, Nick has the final word. It appears OED does not give the meaning of "none" for "few" (cmlover's post).
Despite these if you insist that "few" means "none" just because certain sentences you write appeal to you to give the meaning of none, it must be restricted to certain quarters (definitely NIMBY---not in my back yard)

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

OK, one other quote from Webster.

Main Entry: few
Function: adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : consisting of or amounting to only a small number <one of our few pleasures>
2 : at least some but indeterminately small in number —used with a <caught a few fish>

Note the first entry does not require "a" but still means small number (which is greater than zero).
We don't say "one of our a few pleasures" (to mean some).
The second entry indicates "few" and "a few" are used interchangeably.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

"few" can be an adjective, a noun ("a few", "the few") and a pronoun ("of the 8, few are doctors").

Now, this debate is not about the noun and pronoun but about the adjective.

I also see that the strict dictionary meaning of 'few" does not include "zero"

But "none/zero" is implicitly included as a possibility in very narrow set of circumstances. Those circumstances are:

---- It is not a straight declarative statement of a known fact ( "few children are still in the room", here few does not include zero ),

---- it is not a known fact that has happened in the past ("few surviors swam to the other side of the river" does not include zero).

---- But when there is a probability implied in a statement, then 'none/zero' is included as a possibility.

For example, "few artists are as creative as X". Obviously, this does not mean 'No artist is as creative as X'. On the other hand, you do not need to know of one or more artists who are as creative as X.

There is a probability implied, there is a bit of uncertainty... Whoever stated the above does not necessarily need to know of an artist who is as creative as X.

So in these circumstances, when you can not boldly assert 'No artist is as creative as X', or have specific information to say 'only a few artists are as creative as X', you say 'few artists are as creative as X'. In that probabilistic sense, zero is included as a possibility.

Nick H
Posts: 9379
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

I know that RV won't mind me blaming him!

Relativity, I have said, is there. I have also said that, if you want to include the possibility of zero, the usual usage is "few if any". The language specifically allows for it, and you do not have to twist the definition of "few" to make it include zero. It doesn't.

I suspect we may have reached the point on this where further discussion is not going to help anybody!

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

Vk's probabilistic explanation is quite helpful.
I can see the similarity of the sanskrit term 'kashcit' (an indefinite pronoun) meaning probably some one...

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

>>So in these circumstances, when you can not boldly assert 'No artist is as creative as X', or have specific information to say 'only a few artists are as creative as X', you say 'few artists are as creative as X'. In that probabilistic sense, zero is included as a possibility.<<

Very remote possibility! Only as a default, which happens rarely, if at all. :grin:

sureshvv
Posts: 5523
Joined: 05 Jul 2007, 18:17

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by sureshvv »

FWIW, I am with Nick on this (few > 0), but I remember this being actually taught the way r-t defines it (0 <- few) over my Pre University days by a dubious English teacher :-)

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

There were always dubious English teachers (besides some very good ones) in India who show off by asserting something which may or may not be true. "few" and "a few", "little" and "a little" were used as typical examples of contrasting usage.

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

What better thing to do on a Saturday afternoon than browsing "The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations" (Third Edition, Oxford University Press) while watching world cup soccer?
Here is what I found on our beloved word "few". In the following quotations "few" appears per se and not with qualifiers like "a" "quite a" "very" etc.
1, It is a miserable state of mind to have few things to desire and many things to fear ---Francis Bacon (1561-1626) (note that many is contrasted against few)
2. God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.---Bible (Ecclesiastes 5.2). Here the Bible does not tell you to use "no words"
3. For many are called, but few are chosen.--Bible (St. Matthew 22:14)

4. "..... The languid strings do scarcely move! The sound is forc'd, the notes are few!". William Blake (1757-1827) in "To the Muses". "notes are few" says it all.
5, Man that is born of a woman is small potatoes and few in the hill.
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) in The Head of the District.
6. Men of few words are the best of men.
Shakespeare (1564-1616) in Henry V.
7. ".....We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother....."
Shakespeare Henry IV Part 1
8. "....Ye are many----they are few"
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1832)
Collection of poems XXXVIII and XCI

Enough?

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

That 'few' is just too many :D

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

To sum up, the following order is valid.
0 < few < very few < a few < quite a few < lot < infinite
Zero is neutral (neither positive nor negative)
All the others are positive numbers or quantity.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by srkris »

Few would agree that 'a few' means the same as 'few'. Phew!

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

Is the comparative declension of few -- few, fewer, fewest ?
I have never seen fewest ever being used in practice. Am I right?
Of course the existence of the word 'fewer' does indicate that few is non zero ??

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

cmlover wrote:Is the comparative declension of few -- few, fewer, fewest ?
Yes
I have never seen fewest ever being used in practice. Am I right?
It is not commonly used. But one can say "the people who attended X's lecture are the fewest in recent history of the lecture series"
Of course the existence of the word 'fewer' does indicate that few is non zero ??
By all means

So the nail on zero inside the coffin is firmly in place, never to be seen outside in the company of "few". :)

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Nick H wrote: I have also said that, if you want to include the possibility of zero, the usual usage is "few if any". The language specifically allows for it, and you do not have to twist the definition of "few" to make it include zero. It doesn't.
You and mahakavi seem to be much more sure about this, so let me state this just for completeness of discussion.
I am not twisting anything, I am just reporting how I have known it to be used, in the narrow set of real world circumstances I have outlined.

Remember how the three degrees of adjectives, "positive", "comparative" and "superlative" are related to each other and how a statement can be restated in any of forms without changing the meaning?

For example: "X is the most creative student in the class", and "There is no one in the class who is as creative as X is" are equivalent.

Now, how do you transform "X is arguably the most creative student in the class" or "X is probably the most creative student in the class"

"There is no one who is as creative as X" is not correct.

The following two are acceptable.

"a few students, if any, are as creative as X"
"few students are as creative as X"

If you agree that the superlative form allows for the possibility of X to be in the sole possession of first rank in the creativity scale, you should agree that the second form also allows for the possibility of X to be in the sole possession of that.

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by arasi »

VK,
Then, there is 'hardly any'!
By the way, 8) is you! Many many more years of a 8) -er life, birthday boy!

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

VK
In the first example the definite article 'the' establishes the uniqueness of the person. On the otherhand if it was the indefinite article 'a' then the uniqueness will be lost.
In the second example ties are allowed since there is no article preceding. If however it was 'the X' then the uniqueness will be restored and your first equivalence may be lost but the second may hold good (by including '0' as a possibility).

Thx arasi for reminding us! Many happy returns VK...

Post Reply