Discussion on the use of "Few"

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 27 Jun 2010, 21:44

vk... the comparative of few is fewer; the superlative is fewest. Wasn't that in my dictionary definition? None of them include zero.

You would not say "a few students, if any, are as creative as X" because it is clumsy, if not bad English. Actually, I doubt that you would say it: your English is far too good.

I am just reporting how I have known it to be used, in the narrow set of real world circumstances I have outlined.

It is a common word, you must be reporting the narrow set of real-world circumstances in which you may have heard it misused. In over fifty years of learning and speaking English, in daily reading, for the last twenty years or so, of novelists ranging from Nobel prize winners to entertaining rubbish, as well as non-fiction and technical literature, I have never come across this "few" including none.

You have refuted the standard authority on this language (the Oxford Dictionary). You have absolutely refused to take the word of an English speaker. You are, no doubt, determined to be wrong!

Whilst it may lead to misunderstanding it, it is but one word, a small thing --- I don't know where Arasi gets her information, but let me join her in wishing you a very happy birthday and a year full of good music

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 27 Jun 2010, 22:27

you must be reporting the narrow set of real-world circumstances in which you may have heard it misused.

I grant you that.

For example, when I read "Nuns Go Places Where Few Dare to Go" in http://church-ladies.blogspot.com/2010/ ... to-go.html

I understand it as an implicit expression of doubt that any one will go where the nuns go spiritually. That may be a misuse on their part or misunderstanding on my part.

(Thanks everyone for the birthday wishes. Nick, it is from a different thread ).

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 27 Jun 2010, 23:04

Well, the nuns go there, so it doesn't matter if the few includes others or not: it is not no-one.

This puts me in mind of arguing with an ex-boss, who, despite having spoken the language for a few more years than I, could not understand that it is not possible for something to be more or less unique. Unique means one only and has no comparative or superlative. The error messages from some database software (eg "not unique enough") don't help. The thing about unique being unique, is something that some English people just can't grasp.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 28 Jun 2010, 00:02

>Well, the nuns go there, so it doesn't matter if the few includes others or not: it is not no-one.

I do not understand this. When you say "if the few includes others or not", isn't that what the main point is, if the 'count of others includes zero or not'. If all you are saying is since at least one nun goes there, it is not zero. Fine, that is not a problem for me at all. Meaning, in the above usage, if the reference to 'few' includes the nuns, then you are absolutely right. That is not how I understood it. May be that is where the issue is, a misunderstanding on my part on that key point.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 28 Jun 2010, 01:32

If there was some feature to google that analysed style, form and content, it might tell us that this nun title is formed from some other saying. Or I might be thinking of "where angels fear to tread". So might the writer have been. There is quite a lot wrong in that piece (which taught me the word sodality), but, as I posted on another thread here today, the author wasn't taking an exam.

My understanding of what the writer wishes to convey is that nuns routinely do things and go to places and situations that would be unusual for others, but this still places them squarely among the few, so yes, the few includes the nuns. Enamoured of nuns as the author clearly is, I don't think [s]he is suggesting that nuns were alone in any of the great works ascribed to them, except perhaps the battle-field nursing, that might not have included other civilian women.

We can conclude, though, thanks to your example, that few can include nun

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 28 Jun 2010, 01:34

When you mean "none" (no one, not one), "few" will not fit.
When you mean "few", "none" has no place there, except "nun"

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 28 Jun 2010, 01:36

but nun has

Otherwise, yes. Succinct and correct.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 28 Jun 2010, 02:01

>When you mean "none" (no one, not one), "few" will not fit.

Correct. I am not saying that either.

The narrow set of circumstances I am referring to has to satisfy a few conditions:

1) The cardinality is not known for certain.
2) None would be too assertive and deterministic, one needs a softer form of assertion.
3) It is not a statement of fact but a fuzzy characterization.

Anyway, the nun example is just that and I instinctively understood that it is referring to the others ( and not the nuns ) and it satisfies the above three conditions to include the possibility ( mind you, just the possibility ) of zero others.

( Just as an aside, If I am developing a data model for the above sentence, until I get to ask a clarifying question, I would model the cardinality as 0 to M and not 1 to M . The latter can get us into trouble in the future. )

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 28 Jun 2010, 02:24

I'd have to look up the word "cardinality", but I sure I can reply 1 to m.

Then we'll have to agree to differ. Although it may appear otherwise, there is a limit to how many times I can repeat myself!

mahakavi has caught me out, this evening, with two errors --- but on this matter, I am absolutely, 100%, after sleeping on it, after wondering if I haven't made one of my crazy confusions, after discounting any possible dyslexia, certain.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 28 Jun 2010, 02:42

Alright Nick, sounds good. Until we find any other evidence or data point, we will stop here.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 28 Jun 2010, 03:23

Let me take this into a bit of a geeky direction... just for fun... This may not shed anything to the current issue at hand...

Here is how one will model the sentence, "Nuns Go Places Where Few Dare to Go", epistemologically speaking ( knowledge representation, data modeling etc. )...
I am interpreting that the 'few' refers to lay persons and not nuns.

Ready?... don't tell me you were not warned... geek alert had been issued.

We have two nouns: Person and Place ( spiritual place in this context.. )

Relationship under consideration is "Person going to Places"

Nun IS A person
Lay person IS A person

The relationship between Person and Place is as follows: A specific person can go to 0 or more places and a specific place is visted by 0 or more persons.
So the cardinality of the relationship is usually written as: Person to Place is 1 to 0..M and Place to Person is 1 to 0..M

The relationship between Nun and Place is as follows: A specific nun can go to 1 or more places and a specific place is visited by 0 or more Nuns.
So the cardinality of the relationship is: Nun to Place is 1 to 1..M and Place to Nun is 1 to 0..M

The relationship between lay person and place is as follows: A specific lay person can go to 0 or more places and a specific place is visited by 0 or more lay persons.
So the cardinality of the relationship is: Lay person to Place is 1 to 0..M and place to lay person is 1 to 0..M

As you can see, the relationship of places to anyone is always 0..M since a specific place need not be visited by anyone...
There are places even nuns do not visit. That is not our current debate.

But the relationship between Person to Places is where the interest is. It goes like this.

Person to Place is 1 to 0..M
Nun to Place is 1 to 1..M
Lay person to Place is 1 to 0..M

The query that validates the 'zero inclusiveness" will be implemented as follows.

Are there places that are visited by Nuns that are not visited by lay persons? If there is at least one such place, then the
"zero inclusive interpretation of 'few' " is validated, as long as "few" refers to lay persons and does not include nuns.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 28 Jun 2010, 03:37

"Nuns Go Places Where Few Dare to Go"
Nuns go places.
Few people dare to go (to the same) places
"places" are the same in both cases above.
Not many dare to go to the same places but few(some) do.
Not everybody does but some dare.
Draw your conclusion from this.
The basic premise does not change whatever the circumstances are.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 28 Jun 2010, 03:42

>>Are there places that are visited by Nuns that are not visited by lay persons?<<
This query is ambiguous. It may be that there are places not visited by lay persons (but visited by nuns). But it may be because they (lay persons) don't care to go to such places.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 28 Jun 2010, 04:09

The ambiguity is resolved because in this model, Place only refers to those places that few lay persons dare to go. It does not include places they do not care to go. Think of that Place class as pre-populated with only such places.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 28 Jun 2010, 06:08

Then the answer to your question is an unequivocal "no".
Even if one lay person visits besides the nuns then the definition of "few" is validated as >0.

Imagine this situation. Let us say one person dares to go. He does not end up at the destination. Let us say he gets lost or dies on the way. Only in this hypothetical case your cardinality takes a value >0 but <1. But if the attempt to go is counted as sufficient then the value is = 1.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 28 Jun 2010, 07:00

>Even if one lay person visits besides the nuns then the definition of "few" is validated as >0.

Of course.

My query to this ( imaginary ) database is the other way.. ( also assume once someone dares to go to a place, they do reach the place, for this discussion )

"Are there places that are visited by Nuns that are not visited by lay persons? If there is at least one such place, then the
"zero inclusive interpretation of 'few' " is validated, as long as "few" refers to lay persons and does not include nuns."

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 28 Jun 2010, 09:52

>>"Are there places that are visited by Nuns that are not visited by lay persons? If there is at least one such place, then the
"zero inclusive interpretation of 'few' " is validated, as long as "few" refers to lay persons and does not include nuns."<<

The answer to the above question is "no" if the lay persons category includes women.
I don't want to give fodder to your cannon by giving you an exception where the destination would be a nunnery, in which case the word "dare" is the stopper.
If we keep on narrowing such a path, ultimately it may be possible to reach the value of zero, but only asymptotically which is what you are aiming at.

John Keats in his poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn" writes as follows:
Bold lover never never canst thou kiss;
Though winning near the goal--yet, do not grieve
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy kiss
For ever wilt thou love and she be fair
That is what describes the asymptotic behavior. You won't do it but keep on going.

Here equate the kiss with your cardinality value of zero.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 28 Jun 2010, 23:07

Nick, for whatever it is worth, I checked with a few people if the reference to 'few' includes the nuns are not. They all felt it refers to the non-nuns, the same way as I understood it.

mahakavi: Regarding asymptotic or not, I am not sure if I understand what you are saying fully but here is some context. I am not making this up to make it narrower and narrower... just a context so we do not talk about straw-man side issues that inevitably come up.

In this context, let us say the "Places" we are talking about are the battlefields and disease ridden places. Let us also assume that nuns go there routinely and lay persons in general are afraid to go there. These are all given, not subject to debate, for this purpose.

All we are doing by querying the model (database ) is to validate the statement "nuns go places where few dare to go".

First query is to provide a report that shows the number of nuns that have visited such places ( N ) and a report that shows the number of lay persons that have visited such places ( L ). A summary report is all we need, we do not even need per place statistics. As long as N is significantly greater than L, the statement is validated. That is, Nuns do go to places where few dare to go. I think we all agree on that.

The "zero inclusiveness test" is as I wrote earlier. Run a query that shows the list of places that nuns have visited and lay persons have not. If there is at least one such a place, then the zero inclusiveness test for 'few' is validated.

Just as an aside to this aside, since you showed some interest in my cardinality characterization, in knowledge representation and data models, there are constraints. Cardinality is a constraint. If you do not allow for zero lay persons to visit a place a nun has visited, then you will have a problem satisfying the constraint in this insertion scenario: When you want to populate the information for a nun who has just visited a place that no lay person has visited yet. It is one of those insertion anomalies that knowledge representation and data modelers worry about.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 29 Jun 2010, 00:40

Unfortunately, your nun example is a piece of clumsy, if not bad, English. We can't define a word in such a context. I'd recommend you to stick with earlier examples such as "few would support...".

My further random thought is...

If we mean none, we say none, but, if we mean one, we say one. Does this mean that "few" is not greater than zero, but greater than one?

Given the possibility of the comparative and superlative, fewer and fewest, in certain circumstances "few" might be said to start at four!

So many academics here... can't someone come up with a professor of English?

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 01:38

I am a little weary of chasing a straw man argument.
In a previous post I gave several literary examples from poets and the Bible to show how "few" is used to denote a value greater than zero (actually more than 1).
Besides, the prevalence of "fewer" and "fewest" indicates that "few" can NEVER be zero lest the comparative and superlative terms would mean negative numbers. If few means 0 person, then fewer would mean -1, -2, -3 ..... persons. Shall we call them anti-persons? To traverse that sequence from the positive side, one has to disappear (at zero value) and reemerge on the other side as an anti-person.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 01:43

Nick H wrote:So many academics here... can't someone come up with a professor of English?

We need an English professor in the company of nuns.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 29 Jun 2010, 02:28

As much as we need Keats with all his poetic license

Please consider this a remark of an unlettered spectator who tried to listen in but could make neither head nor tail out of it all--which makes me wonder if it's all scientific stuff in the guise (habit) of a nun. Somehow, a nun moving about in her cumbersome habit in hot and humid weather (where some of us live) is disconcerting!
Before one of you says "off with you!", I plead guilty--none of my business, of course. But then, r_t is expected to reappear soon and it will get more intense, perhaps.
I can hear someone murmuring: kollan paTTaRaiyil IKkenna vElai? (What business has a fly in a smithy?). Well, then let me just be a fly on the wall!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 29 Jun 2010, 03:29

mahakavi: You need not get weary.... This is all for fun and not for some earth shattering consequence, so do not get weary. And we actually stopped. The tail of the discussion is on some geeky epistemological stuff. Most people do not think about it at this level since the construction of the sentence is about emphasis on the character of nuns.

Just one last thing... You keep saying "If few means 0 person,".. No one is saying that... All we are talking about is the edge case of "Does 'few' include 0 person?"

May be there is a possibility of a middle ground here. Colloquially it can extend to zero under the specific conditions I have outlined before even if the Dictionary, English teachers and English professors specify otherwise. I would not venture characterizing that colloquial usage as right or wrong. Just to test this informally, I asked a few people around me. All of them said that they would use few even if there is a chance of it being zero. Again, for whatever such informal data collection is worth!! You all can try it with a few people around you

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 29 Jun 2010, 03:55

VK
I am with you on the interpretation
P(few =0) >0
Thus few has a probabilty distribution on natural numbers including zero. The highest probability density rests on a number depending on the context. It can even be a large number if the universe is much bigger. As Nick pointed out few can be 10000 in the context of a million or billion.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 04:53

>>Well, then let me just be a fly on the wall!<<

There is a danger here. If a swatter is also nearby the fate of the fly is predictable!

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 05:02

>>Just one last thing... You keep saying "If few means 0 person,".. No one is saying that... All we are talking about is the edge case of "Does 'few' include 0 person?"<<
vk:
In your terminology (inclusivity)---inclusivity includes zero. If so "few" will also mean zero. If ten people are in a room and if one is a small child, that child is also in the room. But we are talking about adults and not a child. That is what I mean.
As I mentioned before, to support your argument I can concede that few can include zero only in an asymptotic manner. It is like reaching absolute zero in temperature. Scientists haven't succeded in getting there and they might never do so. We are still in the 0.X degree region. Have we reached zero? No. But never despair --- the lover on the Grecian Urn does not!

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 05:10

cmlover wrote:VK
I am with you on the interpretation
P(few =0) >0
Thus few has a probabilty distribution on natural numbers including zero. The highest probability density rests on a number depending on the context. It can even be a large number if the universe is much bigger. As Nick pointed out few can be 10000 in the context of a million or billion.

If you draw the probability curve for "few" the probability of its being zero is zero. Draw the X-Y axes and draw a bell curve starting at x=0 and y=0. The peak may be at 2,3, or any other number you choose depending on the context. If you accept that and still claim "few includes zero" (although the probability is zero) then I am willing to concede your point. It is somewhat like looking for a black cat in a dark room which is not there

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 29 Jun 2010, 05:40

CML's P(few =0) >0 accurately and succinctly describes what I am saying. The curve starts a bit above zero on the Y axis. Again, this is just a restatement of what has been said before. It is fuzzy logic and natural languages as used by normal people are occasionally fuzzy in semantics and pragmatics, especially in idiomatic expressions.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 06:58

I am not a mathematician but what I know of normal distribution (also called "bell curve") always starts at zero on the Y axis and also ends at zero on the Y axis over the total span of X axis. That is a Gaussian function. If as you say it starts above zero on the Y axis, it should also end at the same point over the total span of X axis in order to conform to normal distribution. If that be the case the point at which the curve starts and ends will become the new zero for the normal distribution curve.
Taking the value of few, its probability of having a value of zero is zero which is the same probability at a very large number. So "few" peaks at a small value and reaches zero at zero and zero at some large value. It is also a very sharp curve peaking quickly and tailing off to zero rapidly at both ends. Analytical chemists call such curves as high resolution ones.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 29 Jun 2010, 07:35

Dear Sub
Who claims it is a Gaussian distribution? The Gaussian never reaches zero anywhere!
This can be a truncated Gaussian with non zero probability at zero and peaking at a specified value and then truncated at a high value.
P (few = infinity) = 0 indeed
again
P (few <0) = 0

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 09:51

My first impression of your non-zero gaussian function is: fictitious.
Study your post again. If P(few=infinity)= 0 why can't P(few=0) also be 0?
You say P(few<0) =0. That means we are dealing with negative numbers for "few" which is fictitious.
But I am not a mathematician and I will quit at this stage.
That does not mean I buy the concept that "few" could take a value of 0.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 29 Jun 2010, 21:55

Mahakavi, the one man 'swat' team,
Aside-ilum aside--'asaDilum asaDu enRum koLLalAm:

'kol' enRAn, kollanoruvan--
viyarvai vazhiyat tIyin mun vElai seidAlum--
Angoru I, engO Or mUlaic cuvar mIdirundum--
'vil eDu, illai, vEl' enRan, pinbum, 'taTTi aDikkum
taRkAla I aDippAn koNDu vA' enRAn enRAl--
'pin ingenakkenna vElai?' enRanda I
arugAmai mAndOppilE mudirnda
kanigaL tEDic cenRadAm--

kaDum soRpOril Ikkenna vElai?
I aDiPPAnukkumtAn

Exit

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 23:13

I am glad the fly exited the scene alive. Very smart fly indeed!
But for every fly that escapes alive, there may be others who succumb because they dared to visit a prohibited area.

Should I protest or wear as a badge of honor the title you confer on me ;(

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 29 Jun 2010, 23:17

Can I say now we have few I's but a few I aDippAn

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 29 Jun 2010, 23:24

Yes. Now that we know there was/is at least one fly, you can say "few Is" and a few or few I aDippAns.

The "I" aDippAns and "Is" are mutually inclusive. The former comes into the picture only when the latter are present.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 30 Jun 2010, 01:18

mahakavi: You are giving the opposite camp ideas...

One day there were quite a few Is ( flies ). The fly swatters were there. They took care of them.
Second day there were a few flies. The fly swatters were there. They took care of them
Third day, one fly swatter said to the other "(Since we did such a good job) do we need to go there today given the expectation of few flies" The other fly swatter said 'Let us go anyway, just in case there are a few'.
They did not find any flies.

No harm, no foul. Everyone was happy.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 30 Jun 2010, 01:33

vk:
>>They did not find any flies.<<
Good. There were few flies before the swatters invaded. Now there are none.
I am a nonviolent person and a humanitarian too!
I would rather the flies escape without giving trouble to anyone. If they give you trouble you may have to use the swatter if only to chase them away rather than kill them.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 01 Jul 2010, 15:43

I can see Boswell is still sharing his error-filled ideas here...

Let me try once more, this time with two additional examples.

Consider these two sentences:
1. "The argument has little merit."
2. "Few men would walk into a women's restroom."

The first one refers to uncountable noun (merit), and the second one refers to countable noun (men).
Otherwise, they are both used in a fairly similar sense.
That is, the speaker in both scenarios is expressing his/her belief of 'hardly any'.

Now, what does 'hardly any' mean? To use the language of probability, the probability of zero/none/nothing is very high, with a smaller probability for numbers/amounts greater than zero. So we can rewrite the two sentences as follows:

1. "I believe the argument has no merit. But it may have a very small amount of merit."
2. "I believe no man would walk into a women's restroom. But a small number of men may."

Thus, in these two examples, the stated belief is that none/zero/nothing has the highest probability.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 01 Jul 2010, 15:56

You have never walked into a women's restroom?

Of course the probability is not zero!

(I do mean by mistake of course!)

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 02 Jul 2010, 03:37

Nick H wrote:You have never walked into a women's restroom?

Of course the probability is not zero!

Duh? Your post makes no sense at all.
I wish you would read with some attention first, before responding.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 02 Jul 2010, 06:53

ragam-talam wrote:Let me try once more, this time with two additional examples.

Consider these two sentences:
1. "The argument has little merit."
2. "Few men would walk into a women's restroom."

The first one refers to uncountable noun (merit), and the second one refers to countable noun (men).
You got this one right regarding the quality and quantity.

Now, what does 'hardly any' mean? To use the language of probability, the probability of zero/none/nothing is very high, with a smaller probability for numbers/amounts greater than zero. So we can rewrite the two sentences as follows:

1. "I believe the argument has no merit. But it may have a very small amount of merit."
Perhaps
2. "I believe no man would walk into a women's restroom. But a small number of men may."
This is not what you will discern from the "Few men would walk into a women's restroom." statement. When "none" would do, it is not wise to use "few'

Thus, in these two examples, the stated belief is that none/zero/nothing has the highest probability.

Obviously r-t has conveniently skipped several of the posts which appeared during his absence. There were several quotations cited from the Oxford dictionary where all the "few"-invloving quotations indicated a plurality and never zero (nothing). In addition it was pointed out the comparative and superlative degrees of "few" (fewer and fewest) indicate that "few" can never have a value of zero because then "fewer" would mean negative numbers and hence would not make sense. Can you say " - (minus) two men would ener the women's rest room"?

You can say "few men would stop in front of a women's rest room and fewer would enter it" where fewer would indicate less than few (where fewer could be zero). That is valid

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 02 Jul 2010, 07:10

à®šà®¿à®² à®šà®¿à®² Few
The above quote is from:
http://www.southasia.upenn.edu/tamil/un ... ssary.html

South Asia Language Resource Center of University of Pennsylvania

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 02 Jul 2010, 21:50

MK - your citing fewer/fewest as proof that few cannot include zero, is based on a lack of understanding of the English language and nuanced usage. You may recall earlier you had stated that "few is used with plural verb, hence it can't be none" and I provided an example where none is also used with plural verb (e.g. none of the pies are left).
This one is a bit like that - let me explain (it does feel like talking to a 2-year old, I must admit!):
I said "Few men would walk into a women's restroom" means
"I believe no man would walk into a women's restroom. But a small number of men may."
Well, that doesn't disallow the use of fewer/fewest.
If I said "Few would walk into a women's restroom; even fewer would use one."
it's quite consistent with the meaning of few including none.
All we are saying is that the max number that would use the restroom is even less than the max number of those who would walk into one. The lower limit is still zero/none.

To explain this further, let's look at the use of 'little'. The comparative form of little is 'less'.
So we can say "There is little merit in your argument; and even less merit in your friend's argument."
This means: there is virtually no merit in your argument (I will allow maybe upto a max amount X), and there is virtually no merit in your friend's argument (I will allow maybe upto a max amount <X). The lower limit is still zero, the upper limit is being reduced.
Same applies to the use of few/fewer.

Next: you accuse me of ignoring the quotes you cited. My last post explained the points clearly, so there was no need for me to go back to those quotes.
Let me still address them - e.g. the Bible example: "For many are called, but few are chosen."--Bible (St. Matthew 22:14)
What does this mean? Is this saying at least one person is chosen?
Does it not allow for the possibility that none would be chosen?

I go back to an example I posted couple of times, which you conveniently refuse to respond to:
Let me include it again (3rd time lucky, perhaps!):
A giant comes into town. And someone says "Few would challenge him to a fight."
Does this mean at least one person will challenge him to a fight?
Does it not allow for the possibility that none would challenge him?

I am reminded of the saying: "You can take a horse (or was it a donkey?) to water, but you cannot make it drink it."

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 02 Jul 2010, 22:59

Both sides, just an editorial note. Though gentle put downs of the other side is part of any debate, let us refrain from denigrating the other since it changes the focus of the debate. r-t, I would advise that you edit out those remarks since yours is the last post and will be a good example.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 03 Jul 2010, 01:40

I will wait for the offending remarks of r-t to be edited out before I reply to his latest post.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 03 Jul 2010, 06:52

My responses are in red.

>>MK - your citing fewer/fewest as proof that few cannot include zero, is based on a lack of understanding (really!) of the English language and nuanced usage (Oh, my I have to learn some new nuances)!. You may recall earlier you had stated that "few is used with plural verb, hence it can't be none" and I provided an example where none is also used with plural verb (e.g. none of the pies are left).
I agree when "none " is used for things or persons, the plural verb is permitted. But when the meaning is clearly "no one" or "not one" the singular verb is mandatory. Got it?
This one is a bit like that - let me explain (it does feel like talking to a 2-year old, I must admit!):If a one-year old smart aleck is talking the 2-year old can either listen or ignore. As you like it!
I said "Few men would walk into a women's restroom" means
"I believe no man would walk into a women's restroom. But a small number of men may."
Well, that doesn't disallow the use of fewer/fewest.
If I said "Few would walk into a women's restroom; even fewer would use one."
Now you are changing your stance. Don't you? You said previously "I believe no man would walk into a women's restroom. But a small number of men may." So "walk" changed to "use". Aren't they two different actions?

it's quite consistent with the meaning of few including none.
All we are saying is that the max number that would use the restroom is even less than the max number of those who would walk into one. The lower limit is still zero/none.
Even here if few meaning zero would walk into one then fewer or less than few (zero) would be negative people who would use it. This is what I termed anti-people before. You are slipping and sliding. Be careful!

To explain this further, let's look at the use of 'little'. The comparative form of little is 'less'.
So we can say "There is little merit in your argument; and even less merit in your friend's argument."
This means: there is virtually no merit in your argument (I will allow maybe upto a max amount X), and there is virtually no merit in your friend's argument (I will allow maybe upto a max amount <X). The lower limit is still zero, the upper limit is being reduced.
This argument does not apply here. You yourself admitted it is qualitative here whereas the number of men have to be quantitative (integers)
Same applies to the use of few/fewer.

Next: you accuse me of ignoring the quotes you cited. My last post explained the points clearly, so there was no need for me to go back to those quotes.
Let me still address them - e.g. the Bible example: "For many are called, but few are chosen."--Bible (St. Matthew 22:14)
What does this mean? Is this saying at least one person is chosen?
Yes!
Does it not allow for the possibility that none would be chosen?
No. That statement is made to emphasize faith. Many would be called but only some will be chosen. If none will be chosen that religion is damned! The preacher would be discredited.

I go back to an example I posted couple of times, which you conveniently refuse to respond to:
Let me include it again (3rd time lucky, perhaps!):
A giant comes into town. And someone says "Few would challenge him to a fight."
Does this mean at least one person will challenge him to a fight?
Yes
Does it not allow for the possibility that none would challenge him?
No! It is your imagination because you presupposed "few" includes zero (none). You can't assume something and then point out that assumption as proof.

I am reminded of the saying: "You can take a horse (or was it a donkey?) to water, but you cannot make it drink it."

Obviously you have been in the company of donkeys before and hence the memory is fresh in your mind when you visit here, I suppose.

There were more quotes I provided. You answered only one and that too wrongly. If I can tell you the story of Abel and Cain, Cain killed Abel. God asked him "where is your brother"? Cain replied "Am I my brother's keeper"? Why did Cain kill Abel? That is because God accepted Abel's offering of meat and rejected Cain's offering of grains. So Cain got jealous. But God told Cain that Abel offered with immense faith and devotion and hence he was chosen! Cain was rejected because God said Cain did not offer it with true faith. So, one who has faith will be chosen. If none is chosen it is God's fault (because man was God's creation), if you want to accept it. Please respond to the other quotations. Read them well before responding.

For your benefit I am reproducing my post from June 25th when you were away.
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?

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 03 Jul 2010, 06:59

Even Oxford english faculty will be shuddering.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 03 Jul 2010, 09:11

>No. That statement is made to emphasize faith. Many would be called but only some will be chosen. If none will be chosen that religion is damned! The preacher would be discredited.

Mahakavi: Your argument is quite weak here. Yes, it is true that many would be called but only some may be chosen but there is no guarantee that anyone will be chosen. That is quite consistent with the faith.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 03 Jul 2010, 20:36

vasanthakokilam wrote:>No. That statement is made to emphasize faith. Many would be called but only some will be chosen. If none will be chosen that religion is damned! The preacher would be discredited.

Mahakavi: Your argument is quite weak here. Yes, it is true that many would be called but only some may be chosen but there is no guarantee that anyone will be chosen. That is quite consistent with the faith.

VK:
The quotation is
. For many are called, but few are chosen.--Bible (St. Matthew 22:14)

Did you notice the verb in the affirmative "..few are chosen"?
The verb "are" implies that some (preferably more than one) are (not even the somewhat tentative "may be")chosen

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 03 Jul 2010, 21:07

mk, similar to the way you characterized r-t's logic on the 'giant' example, you are interpreting the statement assuming your point is valid. But what we are trying to do is to see what "few are chosen" means from the contextual meaning. We know from the faith that there is no guarantee of being chosen and the probability of no one being chosen is non-zero. ( do not want to go too deep into that theology here.. ) Take that and apply it to this sentence. The emphasis is on 'few" and not on "are".