Discussion on the use of "Few"

Languages used in Carnatic Music & Literature
Post Reply
mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

>>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!
Last edited by mahakavi on 29 Jun 2010, 05:12, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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 :grin:

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by arasi »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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. :grin:

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

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by cmlover »

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

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

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
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

சில சில 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
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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?
Last edited by mahakavi on 03 Jul 2010, 09:00, edited 2 times in total.

VK RAMAN
Posts: 5009
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:29

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by VK RAMAN »

Even Oxford english faculty will be shuddering.

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

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".

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

vasanthakokilam wrote: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".
No, you are leaving the context of "few are" chosen and stressing the presupposition of the meaning for "few" as a probable zero. Leave the argument part out in this case. The Bible sentence is not disputable. Yes, atheists may do so but a devout Christian goes by it.
The reason the Bible said, "many are called...but a few are choen" means some are chosen. So" few" means some in this context. Faith guarantees for sure. That is why it is called faith. The livelihood of religion depends on it. Don't ask me how do you verify if anybody was chosen? That is not in the realm of verification. In fact when Jesus Christ promised salvation in the kingdom of God, he meant in this birth. But then it was modififed by later preceptors as "the reward awaits you in heaven" if you are virtuous and pious.
Even in Hinduism it says, "you may do all kinds of crimes in your life but at your deathbed if you utter "NArAyaNA", you are assured of mOksham" (ajAmiLan story). Same thing with "sAgara kAlattil sankara sankarA".
So, yes there is a guarantee, in this case for ALL. The Bible discriminates between good and bad people. That is why it says few are chosen, In either case there is a guarantee---for all in Vaishnavism and for some in Christianity.

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

mk, unfortunately any further discussion on this will lead to a debate on the bible based faith itself. ( also, there is the old testament and new testament with significant differences ). The basic idea is one does not put words in to God's mouth. That is, the judgment is solely God's prerogative. If you leave out zero, you are removing certain amount of uncertainty which is a big no-no.

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

vk:
Faith cannot be questioned. When we say "God" it is the creation of man and codification of conduct was formulated by man. But morals and piety were established at the beginning of civilization. So there is no uncertainty if you have faith. The atheist can include zero--i.e., he can say none will be chosen. That is his prerogative. That is the onlly provision for "few" being zero. But in the general scheme of things "few are chosen" means there will be salvation for those who conduct themselves virtuously and piously.

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by vasanthakokilam »

mk, that may all be true in general, but not true with some of the major bible based faiths, according to my info. It did come as a surprise when I first learned about this a couple of decades back.. Anyway, as I said, this may lead us into the debate about the faith, whether my information is right or not, etc. which is not appropriate for this thread.

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by arasi »

AjamiLan story and the saying 'SagiRa samayattilEsankarA SankarA' are not one and the same (are they opposites?). The former is a story of how God is so benevolent that even a whimper from you in your death bed will make him come rushing to youfor your rescue. The other one is an expression which means something totally different. It is used in a situation where some (few? a few?) last minute moves won't make things right--to mean, one has to work (or pray) all along. Eleventh hour pleas (with God) or applying oneself at the last hour is not going to help.

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

VK;
Let us end it here.

ajAmiLan story tells you with one stroke your damnation can be converted into salvation once you utter "nArAyaNa"
As for the "sankara" utterance it is meant to be used as a derisive when people attempt certain things desperately, I know. But the expression came about when it was thought you can ward off punishment for evil deeds by uttering the Lord's name. That was the message. It is similar to going to the priest in the Catholic church and confessing your sins and wiping them away from your slate.

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

Let us end it here
Yep. Besides, few would miss it! (and that means that at least one person will miss it, of course! ;))

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

ragam-talam wrote:Yep. Besides, few would miss it! (and that means that at least one person will miss it, of course! ;))
Yes, you and I will miss it, for sure. Perhaps vk, and Nick H. That constitutes "few". :)

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

I go away for a week's holiday. I pass a birthday, and am presented with grey hair (seriously, noticed the very next day!). I so hate to play the race card, but hey, I'm English. I'll just go on speaking English, while some (a few at least, persist in misunderstanding it!)

Enjoy....

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by mahakavi »

The first grey hair! That means you attained enlightenment like the Buddha (but so late in life)!

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by ragam-talam »

Nick H wrote:while some (a few at least, persist in misunderstanding it!)
Hey, make sure you get it right! You should say 'few at least...' !!
This is called 'English according to Boswell' :lol:

Thankfully, there's little chance others will follow this 'durmaarga'!
Happy b'day, Nick!

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by arasi »

Nick,
Wiser by a year, no doubt...
Once again, a happy, healthy year! Messing about on a river did you some good, I'm sure ;)

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by rshankar »

Happy B'day, Nick...birthdays are for celebration, not looking for gray hairs.

VK RAMAN
Posts: 5009
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:29

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by VK RAMAN »

Happy B'day Nick, distinguished will be the word for grey hair!

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

Re: Discussion on the use of "Few"

Post by Nick H »

Thanks for all the birthday wishes... there was plenty of rain in Kerala this time, but we did, indeed, spend the day on the backwaters. We even looked at a few houses for sale, but few of them were of interest... well, actually, not really; only one of them was of interest and that was utterly impractical, both financially and geographically, being a big, 100-year-old house among the paddy fields. It needed knocking down, of course, but the timber could have been used in the rebuild.

Even two years ago I realised that access by boat only was fine on a sunny day, but not when you are desperately trying to get to the doctor in a monsoon storm.

And I would have to have had the internet beamed in!

Post Reply