Discussion on the use of "Few"

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Jun 2010, 11:04

kssr wrote:Also, there is a possibility that in American language, this usage for the word few may be an accepted one.

It's incorrect usage in American English also.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 13:02

English controversy!

Both are correct, according to what meaning is intended, but "few" can never mean "no" or "none": it always means "not many".

There is a difference in flavour, though, in whether we use the article or not:

There were a few gimmicks draws attention to their presence, noting that there might not have been many, but they were there.

There were few gimmicks draws attention to the fact that there were not many.

Then there are quite a few; more than a few; and, doubtless, may other "few" idioms that do not occur to me just now.

NB: I am not an English scholar, just a native speaker...

kssr · Post by **kssr** » 25 Jun 2010, 13:45

I quote from the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of current English.

" Note that few is neg and a few is positive"

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Jun 2010, 15:45

Nick H wrote:Both are correct, according to what meaning is intended, but "few" can never mean "no" or "none": it always means "not many".

I said it's incorrect usage in the context of the discussion. That is, 'few gimmicks' doesn't mean 'not many', while 'a few' does mean that.

NB: I am not an English scholar, just a native speaker...

I have come across several native speakers of the language who make fundamental errors, e.g. using 'loose' in place of 'lose', etc. In fact native speakers tend to make the typical 'homonym' category of mistakes, viz. 'your' in place of "you're" or "who's" instead of 'whose', etc.
It's education that counts, not nativity per se.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 17:01

I agree! I don't give lectures on spelling, because mine is lousy --- but on usage... I had a decent education, back in the days when we were taught grammar, and I'm not perfect, but my confidence is fairly high.

I quote from the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of current English.

" Note that few is neg and a few is positive"

Maybe there may be more to that? There is no numeric negative or positive connotation, and a qualitative negative or positive would depend entirely on the context. As it stands, it makes little sense at all.

In fact, we really need context to define this one at all!

I think the examples I gave are clear and accurate, but let me repeat, "few" can never mean "none"

"A few gimmicks" means what you want to convey.

Looking back at the original post, I agree with your correction, "a few gimmicks" is, indeed, I am sure, what the writer meant.

There are examples of Indian usage that reverse or substantially change the meaning of a word or phrase as it would appear to the English eye. Examples are till now; even I; under repair. Even if I could say that it is technically wrong, the usage is accepted, and onus is on me to understand!

Of course, I am also very much aware that none of us is here to take an examination

kssr · Post by **kssr** » 25 Jun 2010, 18:29

Nick H wrote: 1. As it stands, it makes little sense at all.

2. Of course, I am also very much aware that none of us is here to take an examination

You have unconsciously used one more such word. "Little sense" above means " no sense" !! Am I right- at least this time?!!

No. I am not a teacher nor am I perfect. But I just pointed out something that occured to me. Either 'few' or' a few' is OK with me.

Coming back, thanks for the Rama Varma review.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Jun 2010, 18:54

'Few' does mean none as per King's English (Fowler)
'A few' means non negative small number.
During my younger days I used to be grilled on grammar.
Most of you seniors must be knowing 'Wren and Martin'...
Our mahakavi is indeed an authority on English grammar and spelling...
I hope I am not opening a Pandora's box

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 19:10

cmlover wrote:'Few' does mean none as per King's English (Fowler)

Reference please!

Few never means none.

It is a wonderfully flexible word (English is like that) but it always means some, never none.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 25 Jun 2010, 19:12

when then "a few", "a lot", etc ?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 19:47

A lot means a large number, few means a small number --- "quite a few" means... Oh dear, what a language this is... probably not as many as "a lot".

Context is all.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 25 Jun 2010, 20:11

There are two ways you can look at it:

First: FEW is for countable nouns and A FEW is for uncountable nouns.

Second: FEW can be used to express something negative. A FEW can be used to express something positive.

Looking at your examples we see:

Yesterday only few people attended the meeting. (Here only a small number of people attended the meeting.)

FEW is expressing something negative. Not many people came.

Yesterday quite a few people attended the meeting. (Here a rather large number of people attended the meeting.)

A FEW is expressing something positive. A good number of people.

kssr · Post by **kssr** » 25 Jun 2010, 20:34

A few of us are moving a little away from the main topic of RV

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 25 Jun 2010, 20:38

I have to enter this discussion with some trepidation.
Some of us come from the land of the Silver-tongued Sastry, Satyamurthy and other great non-native English speakers. I have had a few (watch my usage here!) occasions (plural noun) where I corrected the manuscripts of fellow American scientists for English usage. They were more than happy to let them be screened by me for accuracy of English usage.

As for "few", NickH may be right with respect to American English. Webster gives a meaning of "not many but more than one", Example sentence: Few mridangists live a luxurious life (Nick, agree?). In this context it means very few. Watch the verb that follows mridangists. It is a plural verb. Hence it cannot mean "none" ( which means no one) for which the verb has to be singular ---"lives".
a few= a small number. Example: There were a few intellectuals in that group of politicians.

"quite a few" means "fairly large number" --The word quite adds on to the "a few".

In "few and far between" "few" means a limited amount. Example sentence: References to royalty were few and far between in SilappadikAram which was mainly an epic poetry with a common citizen at its center.

If you imply "none" by "few" it is an uncommon but permitted usage---at least not an egregious mistake.

Now when it comes to "little", the scene changes.
Little by itself means "tiny". If you say "little did he realize the problem involved...." it means "he did not realize".
Consider this: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Here " a little" means "scant" or "superficial" because that makes you put your foot in your mouth.

We do not say "little knowledge" to mean "no knowledge"

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 20:43

FEW is expressing something negative.

Few expressing something positive:

There were few instances of gimmickry in this artist's performance.

Back to square one!

If you imply "none" by "few" it is an uncommon but permitted usage---at least not an egregious mistake.

"few" cannot mean none any more than one or two can equal zero. Not even in my maths is that possible. I have never heard this before today, even as a mistake!

By the way, mahakavi... I have never been to America: I speak British English. Not a value judgement, just an accident of birth!

MaheshS · Post by **MaheshS** » 25 Jun 2010, 20:53

Could the usage of "few" imply none? As in, few people will oppose a call to reduce the tax to 0.5%.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 25 Jun 2010, 20:53

NickH:
Read my post again. I am endorsing your meaning for "few". But in India they used to distinguish between "few" and "a few" by making it "none" for the former word and "some" for the latter as a stark contrast.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 25 Jun 2010, 20:56

MaheshS wrote:Could the usage of "few" imply none? As in, few people will oppose a call to reduce the tax to 0.5%.

Yes, it is permitted usage in rare circumstances. Every rule has an exception.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Jun 2010, 20:57

The use of 'few' is nuanced (as with so many other words/idioms in English).
Consider the following:
"A new law is being passed. Few would approve of it."
Here the speaker is expressing his belief that almost nobody - perhaps even nobody! - would approve of the new law.
In this example, 'few' implies none (in addition to close to none).

And mahakavi, it's precisely because 'few' refers to both none and close to none, that the verb is plural.

Nick, the 'few' in 'few gimmicks' is still negative - it's just that gimmick itself is a negative concept, hence the two negatives result in positive!

(cml - perhaps it's time to move this discussion to language section!)

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:04

I'll accept that it is as permitted as 0 = 1

:laugh:

r-t: I like your explanation of the double negative! neat

but I still think the reasoning is wrong. Whether it is negative or positive, depends on what we speaking of. In our car, we might enjoy gimmicks: in our carnatic music, we do not.

"Few would approve of it" does not mean "maybe nobody". "Few, if any" means "maybe nobody".

None is not implied in "few". How many might very, very few be, then? a negative number?

Few may believe me: but it is true!

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:06

ragam-talam wrote: Nick, the 'few' in 'few gimmicks' is still negative - it's just that gimmick itself is a negative concept, hence the two negatives result in positive!

No, the double negative making a positive does not apply here. "gimmicks" (stunt or ploy) by itself is not negative like "bad", where "not bad" would mean "good".

Several of the recent posts in this thread has to be moved into a new one----"Proper English Usage"

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:09

That is the second subthread from this one; and I have been involved in both!

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:10

Nick H wrote:Whether it is negative or positive, depends on what we speaking of. In our car, we might enjoy gimmicks: in our carnatic music, we do not.

Exactly my point.
If you are a lover of gimmicks, then 'few gimmicks' would be a negative statement, meaning you were expecting gimmicks, but almost none were there. But if you don't like gimmicks (most of us fall into this category, I hope!), then 'few gimmicks' is a positive statement.
Hope that's clear.

Same response to mahakavi.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:11

Yes... no problem there.

As long you do not try to persuade me that few gimmicks could include no gimmicks!

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:14

Nick H wrote:As long you do not try to persuade me that few gimmicks could include no gimmicks!

How about this one then: "I expect few people would approve of the new law."
Can this include none? In fact it does.

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.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:31

Let a lot of few related discussion be conntinued here...

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:36

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

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 · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:46

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 · Post by **Suji Ram** » 25 Jun 2010, 21:49

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

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 22:27

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 · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Jun 2010, 23:15

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.)

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 25 Jun 2010, 23:19

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

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 25 Jun 2010, 23:25

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 · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 25 Jun 2010, 23:34

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 · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Jun 2010, 23:40

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

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 25 Jun 2010, 23:53

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!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Jun 2010, 00:32

Found this
http://www.englishforums.com/English/Di ... l/post.htm
and
http://www.english-zone.com/teach/few.html
and
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/ ... ners7b.cfm

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2010, 01:40

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?

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 26 Jun 2010, 01:40

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 · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2010, 01:45

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 · Post by **ragam-talam** » 26 Jun 2010, 01:49

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.

Suji Ram · Post by **Suji Ram** » 26 Jun 2010, 01:55

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 · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2010, 02:08

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!

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 26 Jun 2010, 02:14

Phew!

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 · Post by **mahakavi** » 26 Jun 2010, 02:29

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 · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2010, 02:38

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 · Post by **arasi** » 26 Jun 2010, 03:00

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 · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jun 2010, 03:59

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 · Post by **Suji Ram** » 26 Jun 2010, 04:46

Nick H wrote:
It's all Rama Varma's fault, really

I like that!!

....for his gimmicks...

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 26 Jun 2010, 04:56

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 · Post by **ragam-talam** » 26 Jun 2010, 05:18

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?