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?
Non-trope happy ending?
How to align my equation to left?
How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years
Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?
Which was the first story featuring espers?
How could a planet have erratic days?
I found an audio circuit and I built it just fine, but I find it a bit too quiet. How do I amplify the output so that it is a bit louder?
Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?
Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?
What are some good ways to treat frozen vegetables such that they behave like fresh vegetables when stir frying them?
Did the UK lift the requirement for registering SIM cards?
What features enable the Su-25 Frogfoot to operate with such a wide variety of fuels?
Does "he squandered his car on drink" sound natural?
What does Apple's new App Store requirement mean
Does the Linux kernel need a file system to run?
Is this part of the description of the Archfey warlock's Misty Escape feature redundant?
Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?
How much theory knowledge is actually used while playing?
Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?
Birthday Problem Paraphrased
It grows, but water kills it
Making grids in QGIS
What is the difference between lands and mana?
How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?
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
2 days ago
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
2 days ago
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
@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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
2 days ago
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
2 days ago
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
2 days ago
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
1,006113
1,006113
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
2 days ago
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
2 days ago
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
2 days ago
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
2 days ago
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
2 days ago
Little people would probably not survive fighting a polar bear although they might get a headbut in at some soft spot.
– Borgh
2 days ago
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
2 days ago
But it changes the meaning
– Kshitij Singh
2 days ago
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
2 days ago
Exactly the point.
– Borgh
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
@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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
@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
2 days ago
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
6,6931819
6,6931819
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
2 days ago
@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
2 days ago
add a comment |
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
2 days ago
@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
2 days ago
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
2 days ago
so your saying that whenever we read the word few, we subconsciously understand "few people"?
– WendyG
2 days ago
@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
2 days ago
@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
2 days ago
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
22714
22714
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