Can “few” be used as a subject? If so, what is the rule?How can I point to the one shoe of my father's shoes?Indefinite interviewers and mostly definite childrenStruggle to be sure about the subject of this sentenceCan “either” be used for more than two items?When is 'what' used for living beings?Can “quintuple,” “sextuple,” etc. be used as determiners?Can all be used with a singular nounCan “the” be used once for a list of things instead of for each of them?Why the writer is not using “a few” in place of “few” in the following sentence?Can 'singer' be used as an uncount noun?
Extract more than nine arguments that occur periodically in a sentence to use in macros in order to typset
What if a revenant (monster) gains fire resistance?
Open a doc from terminal, but not by its name
Using substitution ciphers to generate new alphabets in a novel
What is the evidence for the "tyranny of the majority problem" in a direct democracy context?
Why would a new[] expression ever invoke a destructor?
Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?
What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)
putting logo on same line but after title, latex
Lowest total scrabble score
How do you respond to a colleague from another team when they're wrongly expecting that you'll help them?
How can I write humor as character trait?
Why Shazam when there is already Superman?
Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?
How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?
Does the Linux kernel need a file system to run?
What is the highest possible scrabble score for placing a single tile
How does the math work for Perception checks?
Quoting Keynes in a lecture
What features enable the Su-25 Frogfoot to operate with such a wide variety of fuels?
Can a Canadian Travel to the USA twice, less than 180 days each time?
Why does AES have exactly 10 rounds for a 128-bit key, 12 for 192 bits and 14 for a 256-bit key size?
Keeping a ball lost forever
What happens if you are holding an Iron Flask with a demon inside and walk into an Antimagic Field?
Can “few” be used as a subject? If so, what is the rule?
How can I point to the one shoe of my father's shoes?Indefinite interviewers and mostly definite childrenStruggle to be sure about the subject of this sentenceCan “either” be used for more than two items?When is 'what' used for living beings?Can “quintuple,” “sextuple,” etc. be used as determiners?Can all be used with a singular nounCan “the” be used once for a list of things instead of for each of them?Why the writer is not using “a few” in place of “few” in the following sentence?Can 'singer' be used as an uncount noun?
I took a test with the following question:
__________has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
a. Little
b. Some
c. Few.
Now, I know that the correct answer is little, but why specifically can't I use few here? What is the rule for this?
Also, it seems to me that we could make a sentence like
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
So, could someone kindly explain why we can't use few in the example?
determiners
add a comment |
I took a test with the following question:
__________has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
a. Little
b. Some
c. Few.
Now, I know that the correct answer is little, but why specifically can't I use few here? What is the rule for this?
Also, it seems to me that we could make a sentence like
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
So, could someone kindly explain why we can't use few in the example?
determiners
1
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
Mar 18 at 22:28
add a comment |
I took a test with the following question:
__________has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
a. Little
b. Some
c. Few.
Now, I know that the correct answer is little, but why specifically can't I use few here? What is the rule for this?
Also, it seems to me that we could make a sentence like
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
So, could someone kindly explain why we can't use few in the example?
determiners
I took a test with the following question:
__________has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
a. Little
b. Some
c. Few.
Now, I know that the correct answer is little, but why specifically can't I use few here? What is the rule for this?
Also, it seems to me that we could make a sentence like
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
So, could someone kindly explain why we can't use few in the example?
determiners
determiners
edited Mar 18 at 16:43
Jasper
19k43771
19k43771
asked Mar 18 at 7:29
BrainDefenestrationBrainDefenestration
584
584
1
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
Mar 18 at 22:28
add a comment |
1
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
Mar 18 at 22:28
1
1
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
Mar 18 at 22:28
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
Mar 18 at 22:28
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 11:23
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
Mar 19 at 11:37
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 14:22
add a comment |
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
Mar 18 at 8:04
14
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
Mar 18 at 9:29
9
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
Mar 18 at 11:58
7
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
Mar 18 at 12:29
5
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
Mar 18 at 13:11
|
show 1 more comment
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
Mar 19 at 10:29
@WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.
– BillJ
Mar 19 at 10:37
add a comment |
Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":
- "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)
- "The Many" (dictionary definition)
Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.
But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f201072%2fcan-few-be-used-as-a-subject-if-so-what-is-the-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 11:23
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
Mar 19 at 11:37
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 14:22
add a comment |
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 11:23
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
Mar 19 at 11:37
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 14:22
add a comment |
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
We use "little" for uncountable nouns and "few" for countable nouns.
In your sentence
Little has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The general situation has changed a bit. And "general situation" is an uncountable noun, therefore "little" is correct.
In your second sentence
Few have survived fighting polar bears barehanded.
"Few have survived" implies few people have survived, and you can count people.
edited Mar 18 at 16:40
Jasper
19k43771
19k43771
answered Mar 18 at 7:32
Kshitij SinghKshitij Singh
1,026113
1,026113
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 11:23
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
Mar 19 at 11:37
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 14:22
add a comment |
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 11:23
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
Mar 19 at 11:37
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 14:22
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 11:23
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 11:23
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
Mar 19 at 11:37
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
Mar 19 at 11:37
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 14:22
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
Mar 19 at 14:22
add a comment |
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
Mar 18 at 8:04
14
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
Mar 18 at 9:29
9
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
Mar 18 at 11:58
7
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
Mar 18 at 12:29
5
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
Mar 18 at 13:11
|
show 1 more comment
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
Mar 18 at 8:04
14
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
Mar 18 at 9:29
9
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
Mar 18 at 11:58
7
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
Mar 18 at 12:29
5
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
Mar 18 at 13:11
|
show 1 more comment
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
This sentence would work:
Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The difference is that few requires a plural verb form. Few has is ungrammatical, but few have is fine.
Note the subtle difference in meaning based on the words that could be implied to exist but that have been left out:
Little [of anything] has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Versus:
Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
The subject goes from something general to something more specific.
However, the multiple choice question didn't use have as its second word; it used has. With has, few isn't an option.
answered Mar 18 at 7:55
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
16.5k22238
16.5k22238
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
Mar 18 at 8:04
14
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
Mar 18 at 9:29
9
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
Mar 18 at 11:58
7
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
Mar 18 at 12:29
5
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
Mar 18 at 13:11
|
show 1 more comment
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
Mar 18 at 8:04
14
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
Mar 18 at 9:29
9
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
Mar 18 at 11:58
7
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
Mar 18 at 12:29
5
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
Mar 18 at 13:11
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
Mar 18 at 8:04
"Few [people / things] have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.|" This sounds grammatically incorrect to me for some reason.
– BrainDefenestration
Mar 18 at 8:04
14
14
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
Mar 18 at 9:29
@JasonBassford: I don't think you can omit the "things" in "Few things have changed" without changing the meaning. Without it, it strongly implies you're talking about people.
– Flater
Mar 18 at 9:29
9
9
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
Mar 18 at 11:58
@Flater. With suitable context it could be fine (e.g. "How are the trains?" "Few have run on time this week"). Without context I agree it implies people.
– Mark Perryman
Mar 18 at 11:58
7
7
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
Mar 18 at 12:29
@Flater I don't think it strongly implies anything. WIthout any context, "Few have changed at work" is almost meaningless IMO. My reaction would be to wonder "Few what have changed?"
– alephzero
Mar 18 at 12:29
5
5
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
Mar 18 at 13:11
Last year one of the things to come out of our staff survey was provision for lockers for cyclists so they can change once they get to work. So the statement 'Few have changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out." not only is perfectly meaningful, it might even be true at my office.
– Pete Kirkham
Mar 18 at 13:11
|
show 1 more comment
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
Mar 19 at 10:29
@WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.
– BillJ
Mar 19 at 10:37
add a comment |
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
Mar 19 at 10:29
@WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.
– BillJ
Mar 19 at 10:37
add a comment |
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.
____ has changed at work since the last employee survey was carried out.
Both "few" and "little" occur as fused determiner-heads, but the former only occurs with personal plural nouns, as in Few would disagree with the decision, where we understand "few people".
By contrast, paucal "little" occurs with non-personal nouns, as in your example.
Edit: For those not familiar with the term 'fusion', as used to describe "few" and "little", it means that a determiner and the noun it determines (the 'head') are combined, or fused, into a single word. For example, "few" is a determinative combining the functions of determiner and head, hence the term 'fused determiner-head'.
edited Mar 19 at 9:23
answered Mar 18 at 16:26
BillJBillJ
6,7181819
6,7181819
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
Mar 19 at 10:29
@WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.
– BillJ
Mar 19 at 10:37
add a comment |
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
Mar 19 at 10:29
@WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.
– BillJ
Mar 19 at 10:37
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
Mar 19 at 10:29
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
Mar 19 at 10:29
@WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.
– BillJ
Mar 19 at 10:37
@WendyG Yes, we understand "few" to mean "few people". Note that a determiner cannot function alone as a subject; by definition it requires a noun to determine.
– BillJ
Mar 19 at 10:37
add a comment |
Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":
- "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)
- "The Many" (dictionary definition)
Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.
But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.
add a comment |
Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":
- "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)
- "The Many" (dictionary definition)
Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.
But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.
add a comment |
Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":
- "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)
- "The Many" (dictionary definition)
Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.
But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.
Groups of people have often been described as "The Few" or "The Many":
- "We happy few..." (Play title, Henry V)
- "The Many" (dictionary definition)
Casting these as definite nouns, is used to emphasise their commonality as a group (the few as a group, or the many as a group). As such, they are also in principle a countable number, although in practice that often isn't done or expected.
But in your situation, you want a comparative ("not a lot") and not a countable specific small number. For that, little is the correct word.
answered Mar 19 at 7:00
StilezStilez
22514
22514
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f201072%2fcan-few-be-used-as-a-subject-if-so-what-is-the-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Your example is fine. What's the difference between it and the test question?
– Apollys
Mar 18 at 22:28